View Poll Results: Who was the most hopeless Defence Sec?
Duncan \"Manned aircraft are obsolete\" Sandys
14
13.86%
Denis \"TSR2\" Healey
31
30.69%
John \"CVS\" Nott
14
13.86%
Michael \"Ranting Nutter\" Portillo
13
12.87%
Geoff \"Of course we don\'t need FA2\" Hoon
29
28.71%
Voters: 101. This poll is closed
Which Defence Secretary was the worst?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with Trident is that although the Navy uses it, we don't desperately want it! It was foisted on us by the politicians who then said we had to pay for the privelege of a system that we don't use.
i'd argue though that it is a relatively cheap system to run now that its in service - but I doubt we will see a follow on SSBN class.
Heavy armour - rumours I've picked up from Tankies (sorry Cavalry officers
) say that Challenger is the last generation of MBT - after that we're onto wheeled things. Quite right too.
The RN knew that battleships were obsolete back in the 40's = the problem being that the admirals didn't realise this and besides they were nice toys to play with. Same as their Airships with their bomber forces - useless but pretty. The history of the RN escort fleet is one of a service which has realised it needs to change - the construction programs of the 1950's + 1960's show a shift towards high quality anti sub units - exactly what was needed at the time. The older units were kept around for less than 10 years after 1957 and by 1970 the RN was a radically different force indeed.
As for the carriers I'd argue that they are to the RAF's advantage in that they provide a range of capabilities which support all three services and as long as HMG decides on an expeditionary warfare style of defence policy they are vital to our national interest. If theyu are so expensive and obsolete why do nations like Italy, Thailand, Brazil, spain etc use them and why do so many countries want to acquire them?
i'd argue though that it is a relatively cheap system to run now that its in service - but I doubt we will see a follow on SSBN class.
Heavy armour - rumours I've picked up from Tankies (sorry Cavalry officers
) say that Challenger is the last generation of MBT - after that we're onto wheeled things. Quite right too. The RN knew that battleships were obsolete back in the 40's = the problem being that the admirals didn't realise this and besides they were nice toys to play with. Same as their Airships with their bomber forces - useless but pretty. The history of the RN escort fleet is one of a service which has realised it needs to change - the construction programs of the 1950's + 1960's show a shift towards high quality anti sub units - exactly what was needed at the time. The older units were kept around for less than 10 years after 1957 and by 1970 the RN was a radically different force indeed.
As for the carriers I'd argue that they are to the RAF's advantage in that they provide a range of capabilities which support all three services and as long as HMG decides on an expeditionary warfare style of defence policy they are vital to our national interest. If theyu are so expensive and obsolete why do nations like Italy, Thailand, Brazil, spain etc use them and why do so many countries want to acquire them?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to butt in here chaps, I´ve been following this discussion
with interest.
If Battleships had had their day post WW2, then why was the
US Navy bringing their New Jersey class war canoes out
of mothballs in the seventies and eighties, to fight in places
like Vietnam and the Lebanon?
Wasn´t one of them used as recently as the Gulf War?
Also the Russian Navy had some kind of Heavy Battlecruiser.
(Kirov class?), commisioned in the eighties which would have
had the task of searching for and destroying US Navy carrier
units.
I´m not suggesting we bring back the Battleship here,
just asking a question.
with interest.
If Battleships had had their day post WW2, then why was the
US Navy bringing their New Jersey class war canoes out
of mothballs in the seventies and eighties, to fight in places
like Vietnam and the Lebanon?
Wasn´t one of them used as recently as the Gulf War?
Also the Russian Navy had some kind of Heavy Battlecruiser.
(Kirov class?), commisioned in the eighties which would have
had the task of searching for and destroying US Navy carrier
units.
I´m not suggesting we bring back the Battleship here,
just asking a question.
Good point, which adequately illustrates the point that weapons systems appropriate for the Cold War may be less suitable in the post Cold War world, and vice versa.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Jimlad:
"In my opinion the events post 9/11 show that bases won't always be there and that investing in carriers will ensure a decent power projection capability that is not tied to a foreign airfield".
Really, where? If you mean Afghanistan, the USN operations would be impossible without tanker support operating from land bases. There would also be no proper reconnaissance or C2 which operate from land bases. It should be pointed out that the USAF B1, B2 and B52 forces delivered around 80% of all munitions dropped.
If anything has come out of the last 10 years it is the continuous reinforcement of the need and efficacy of a heavy bomber force.
It is not surprising, therefore, that everyone is still buying hundreds of tactical jets designed for the Cold War.
"In my opinion the events post 9/11 show that bases won't always be there and that investing in carriers will ensure a decent power projection capability that is not tied to a foreign airfield".
Really, where? If you mean Afghanistan, the USN operations would be impossible without tanker support operating from land bases. There would also be no proper reconnaissance or C2 which operate from land bases. It should be pointed out that the USAF B1, B2 and B52 forces delivered around 80% of all munitions dropped.
If anything has come out of the last 10 years it is the continuous reinforcement of the need and efficacy of a heavy bomber force.
It is not surprising, therefore, that everyone is still buying hundreds of tactical jets designed for the Cold War.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that heavy bombers still do have a role to play - I merely believe that a carrier battle group offers a very useful first reaction force. In the early days of the war most sorties were done from carriers in the Indian ocean to get tactical aircraft over the target. Yes the bombers flew - but is sending a B1 on a 24 hour round trip to drop a limited number of bombs the best way of delivering airpower?
If you look the only way much of the strikes was done was through intense diplomatic pressure to get bases - not a given thing in any situation - if anything this is an unusual situation as so many countries are playing on the American team. Next time the nearest country may not be willing to play ball - look at airstrikes against Libya - the F111's had to go the long way while the carriers sailed where they wanted and launched where they wanted.
My view is that Carriers provide a superb platform to launch initial strikes from - the planes are there and more importantly so are the weapons + spare parts - you don'#t have to wait for weeks for all the bits to be flown in from another base as you already have them. While the air force do their bit to get their strike planes ready the carriers hold the line and do what is necessary. They are just another way of projecting airpower in harms way to do the job we need to do.
If you look the only way much of the strikes was done was through intense diplomatic pressure to get bases - not a given thing in any situation - if anything this is an unusual situation as so many countries are playing on the American team. Next time the nearest country may not be willing to play ball - look at airstrikes against Libya - the F111's had to go the long way while the carriers sailed where they wanted and launched where they wanted.
My view is that Carriers provide a superb platform to launch initial strikes from - the planes are there and more importantly so are the weapons + spare parts - you don'#t have to wait for weeks for all the bits to be flown in from another base as you already have them. While the air force do their bit to get their strike planes ready the carriers hold the line and do what is necessary. They are just another way of projecting airpower in harms way to do the job we need to do.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
1. The carrier based aircraft couldn't have reached or operated safely over Afghanistan without land based support.
2. A carrier group can take weeks to deploy to the scene. A bomber can be there within 24 hours - worldwide.
3. A heavy bomber is the most efficacious way of delivering ordinance - and a couple of bombers out of Diego Garcia is a lot more efficient than a carrier,and it's air group and support.
2. A carrier group can take weeks to deploy to the scene. A bomber can be there within 24 hours - worldwide.
3. A heavy bomber is the most efficacious way of delivering ordinance - and a couple of bombers out of Diego Garcia is a lot more efficient than a carrier,and it's air group and support.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The services are, by nature, resistant to change and it has always fallen to the Defence Secretary (at the behest of the Treasury) to wield the hatchet when the composition of our forces cannot be reconciled with the political and economic realities of the day.
This is why we'll never see a thread in an armed forces forum asking 'Which Defence Secretary was the best?'!
This is why we'll never see a thread in an armed forces forum asking 'Which Defence Secretary was the best?'!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. A carrier group can take weeks to deploy to the scene. A bomber can be there within 24 hours - worldwide.
A carrier can reach speeds of over thirty knots = which means it can sail well over 700 miles per day - in the USN's case they don't need to stop and refuel as they are nuclear powered. It won't take "weeks" to deploy - a week maximum. By contrast how long does it take a single squadron of fighters to deploy, work up, get spares / munitions in and be ready to fight? At least one week - multiply that by 4 and you have 50 odd aircraft all needing basing rights, fuel supplies and personnel. Thats the same as one carrier.
Yes the bomber can be there in 24 hours - but given that a SINGLE B2 costs well over $2 billion don't you think there are more efficient ways to spend $40 billion than on twenty bombers?
As for Diego Garcia - this time we were lucky and had a handy base in the locality - next time we might not be so lucky - we take our land bases for granted at our peril.
A carrier can reach speeds of over thirty knots = which means it can sail well over 700 miles per day - in the USN's case they don't need to stop and refuel as they are nuclear powered. It won't take "weeks" to deploy - a week maximum. By contrast how long does it take a single squadron of fighters to deploy, work up, get spares / munitions in and be ready to fight? At least one week - multiply that by 4 and you have 50 odd aircraft all needing basing rights, fuel supplies and personnel. Thats the same as one carrier.
Yes the bomber can be there in 24 hours - but given that a SINGLE B2 costs well over $2 billion don't you think there are more efficient ways to spend $40 billion than on twenty bombers?
As for Diego Garcia - this time we were lucky and had a handy base in the locality - next time we might not be so lucky - we take our land bases for granted at our peril.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
should have been more clear - the 50 aircraft figure was of course referring to the current peacetime load of a single USN carrier - complete with spares / munitions embarked. Carriers are exceptionally flexible and very capable ships - sure a bomber can do an overflight or two - but how many bombers + AAR tanekrs did it take to do black buck raids? To do that again would cripple our AAR assets at the same time as they are being used for other things- again carriers don't need that.
I still fail to see why people here argue against carriers - it is a floating airfield nothing more. There seems to be much hostility to the idea of carriers existing - is this due to inter service rivalry rather than rational thinking I wonder?
I still fail to see why people here argue against carriers - it is a floating airfield nothing more. There seems to be much hostility to the idea of carriers existing - is this due to inter service rivalry rather than rational thinking I wonder?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Jimlad, I am not arguing against carriers. Just the use of false and spurious arguments being made for them. it does the case no good when they are disproved.
As in your latest answer.
A carrier may well be able to do over 30 knots. But to deploy a full carrier group, including escorts, replenishment and other vessels which are not nuclear powered, takes substantially longer.
The case of deploying a FJ squadron is spurious to the case in discussion, which was about heavy bombers. Please leave your aunt sally's at home.
The cost of the price of the original B-2 aircraft were inflated by adding in all R & D costs. The actual unit cost is more representively shown by the price being offered per unit for additional aircraft of around $500-600 million each. Which sounds expensive untill you compare it with the 747-400, coming off a continuous production with amortized costs, which is over $200 million apiece. And the F-22 which is escalating through $190 million apiece - before the latest projected costs.
Regardless, I was making the case for a bomber force - not a particular bomber.
As in your latest answer.
A carrier may well be able to do over 30 knots. But to deploy a full carrier group, including escorts, replenishment and other vessels which are not nuclear powered, takes substantially longer.
The case of deploying a FJ squadron is spurious to the case in discussion, which was about heavy bombers. Please leave your aunt sally's at home.
The cost of the price of the original B-2 aircraft were inflated by adding in all R & D costs. The actual unit cost is more representively shown by the price being offered per unit for additional aircraft of around $500-600 million each. Which sounds expensive untill you compare it with the 747-400, coming off a continuous production with amortized costs, which is over $200 million apiece. And the F-22 which is escalating through $190 million apiece - before the latest projected costs.
Regardless, I was making the case for a bomber force - not a particular bomber.
Last edited by ORAC; 27th May 2002 at 19:36.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just how did this thread start again?
Just to get back to the point, and to remind you all it was the question " Which defence secretary was the worst?" It is bloody obvious to all isn't it?
None of them was worse than the other! They all allowed the penny pinching treasury to put far too many shackles on the defence budget. They were all bad.
Whilst I realise that there must be some sort of accountability to the taxpayer (including all of us!) I'm sure the taxpayer would be more than interested in the way we do our business now. Going for the cheapest option isn't ever going to give you the best kit that we all need when up against any adversary.
As to the Carrier Battle Group vs land based aircraft. In these times of expeditionary warfare, to quote a phrase, we need all of them! The bombers wouldn't be able to get in to drop all of their bombs without the initial SEAD and GA boys. Likewise the SEAD and GA boys wouldn't go in without the long range tanker and AWACS support. The carriers wouldn't be able to get close enough to the target to launch or be able to sleep at night if it weren't for the long range MPA. Etc, etc, etc. The problem is we don't have a big enough Golf Bag and the treasury won't let us pay the full club membership. Fair enough if El Presidente B Liar only wants us to play 5 days a week!!! However they want the Rolls Royce answer whilst only paying for a Skoda (to mix my metaphores).
The fact is we all need each other, well except for the Tankies!! AH can do their job! Oh and don't forget we don't need the blunties either ( I jest before my wife posts a reply or anyone else wishes to jump down my throat). Its time we all agreed to stop attacking each other and present a united front. Its the penny pinching politician who is our enemy and we are just providing him/her/it with even more ammunition to ask even more stupid parliamentary questions in the house.
Sorry to add some more but I think Jim Lad needs to check out the payloads of the B52, B1 and B2 and work out how many FJs would be needed over the target for an equivalent amount of weaponry. I think it would take UK PLC about three years to do the same amount of damage as one nights work for the big boys.
Missive ends (thank god I hear you say).
None of them was worse than the other! They all allowed the penny pinching treasury to put far too many shackles on the defence budget. They were all bad.
Whilst I realise that there must be some sort of accountability to the taxpayer (including all of us!) I'm sure the taxpayer would be more than interested in the way we do our business now. Going for the cheapest option isn't ever going to give you the best kit that we all need when up against any adversary.
As to the Carrier Battle Group vs land based aircraft. In these times of expeditionary warfare, to quote a phrase, we need all of them! The bombers wouldn't be able to get in to drop all of their bombs without the initial SEAD and GA boys. Likewise the SEAD and GA boys wouldn't go in without the long range tanker and AWACS support. The carriers wouldn't be able to get close enough to the target to launch or be able to sleep at night if it weren't for the long range MPA. Etc, etc, etc. The problem is we don't have a big enough Golf Bag and the treasury won't let us pay the full club membership. Fair enough if El Presidente B Liar only wants us to play 5 days a week!!! However they want the Rolls Royce answer whilst only paying for a Skoda (to mix my metaphores).
The fact is we all need each other, well except for the Tankies!! AH can do their job! Oh and don't forget we don't need the blunties either ( I jest before my wife posts a reply or anyone else wishes to jump down my throat). Its time we all agreed to stop attacking each other and present a united front. Its the penny pinching politician who is our enemy and we are just providing him/her/it with even more ammunition to ask even more stupid parliamentary questions in the house.
Sorry to add some more but I think Jim Lad needs to check out the payloads of the B52, B1 and B2 and work out how many FJs would be needed over the target for an equivalent amount of weaponry. I think it would take UK PLC about three years to do the same amount of damage as one nights work for the big boys.
Missive ends (thank god I hear you say).
Last edited by nav attacking; 27th May 2002 at 19:57.
There is the world of difference between a US CVN and the kind of c arrier we might get. An Air Wing with F/A-18s, Bombcats and S-3 tankers, plus dedicated SEAD etc.
But even then, land based air power was available first in Afghanistan (and there were an embarrassment of countries offering land basing) and the sortie rate generated by the carriers was a) pathetic and b) dependant on land based tanker support.
Historically, FJs like Harriers, Jags and Tornados can get there before the carriers, except when a carrier is already in the area.
And I'm not against carriers or heavy bombers per se. If we could afford them I'd want both, but I'm afraid that we can afford tactical jets and PGMs only. It's sad, but it's reality, and by trying to punch above our weight we'll only compromise our ability to do anything properly.
And they have all been poor, because Defence has not actually been a priority since the early 1950s. The Tories have talked the talk on Defence but have been responsible for equally ill-considered and harmful cuts as have successive Labour Defence ministers. And they will get worse, as previous military service becomes less and less common, and as the status of the job is progressively reduced. Remember that George R got the defence portfolio to make up for the disappointment of not getting the important Scottish job!
I wonder how much blame should also attach to generations of often gutless senior officers - Whitehall warriors who seem to go from being Lions in the Cockpit (or on the bridge or in the lead tank turret) to being administrative mice who lack the backbone to stand up for the interests of their services. Just wondered.....
Who was the best? Heseltine perhaps? Robertson?
But even then, land based air power was available first in Afghanistan (and there were an embarrassment of countries offering land basing) and the sortie rate generated by the carriers was a) pathetic and b) dependant on land based tanker support.
Historically, FJs like Harriers, Jags and Tornados can get there before the carriers, except when a carrier is already in the area.
And I'm not against carriers or heavy bombers per se. If we could afford them I'd want both, but I'm afraid that we can afford tactical jets and PGMs only. It's sad, but it's reality, and by trying to punch above our weight we'll only compromise our ability to do anything properly.
And they have all been poor, because Defence has not actually been a priority since the early 1950s. The Tories have talked the talk on Defence but have been responsible for equally ill-considered and harmful cuts as have successive Labour Defence ministers. And they will get worse, as previous military service becomes less and less common, and as the status of the job is progressively reduced. Remember that George R got the defence portfolio to make up for the disappointment of not getting the important Scottish job!
I wonder how much blame should also attach to generations of often gutless senior officers - Whitehall warriors who seem to go from being Lions in the Cockpit (or on the bridge or in the lead tank turret) to being administrative mice who lack the backbone to stand up for the interests of their services. Just wondered.....
Who was the best? Heseltine perhaps? Robertson?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I'd have to go with Tarzan.
Disagreed with himk over Westlands and think he stabbed Maggie in the back.
But, from all I heard, he really did an excellent job of sorting out the MOD.
Disagreed with himk over Westlands and think he stabbed Maggie in the back.
But, from all I heard, he really did an excellent job of sorting out the MOD.
Orac, crikey! We agree. To an extent.
Tarzan did at least have an ex Guard's Subaltern's inside knowledge of defence and was energetic and sympathetic and willing to listen and even change his mind. Once in post he was willing to argue his Department's case against Party interests (and his own) which was refreshing!
We disagree a little, too. Stabbing Maggie surely did us all a huge favour (she was bonkers, after all, wasn't she?) and we must agree to disagree on Westland.....
Tarzan did at least have an ex Guard's Subaltern's inside knowledge of defence and was energetic and sympathetic and willing to listen and even change his mind. Once in post he was willing to argue his Department's case against Party interests (and his own) which was refreshing!
We disagree a little, too. Stabbing Maggie surely did us all a huge favour (she was bonkers, after all, wasn't she?) and we must agree to disagree on Westland.....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tarzan
I was a great admirer of Tarzan - until I found myself trying to fill in the forms for his famous management study of MOD. He wasted a huge amount of everyone's time trying to decypher what in hell he wanted. It was all a mess of misapplied business-school buzz-words. Trouble with our Tarzan was that (even allowing for his dislexia) he was lazy and thick. His idea of controlling defence expenditure was to ignore his In-tray! Engaging chap, though, and certainly not a contender for "worst SofS"
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say that any ballot is a bit premature for now. That is, until we see what Geoff Hoon can do.
Uncle Geoffery has the potential to be the best, or the worst, Def Sec ever. On one hand, Hoon could stand up for this beleaguered bunch of masochistic loonies with whom I am proud to serve and call my comrades-in-arms. GH could realise all 3 Services are stretched to breaking point and demand a surge in defence investment..... hmmmm!?
More likely, as things surely must come to a head with Gordon 'Scrooge' Brown and the Treasury soon, GH could be the one who hammers the final nails in our coffin as we become the UK-Defence Force or the British Corps of the Joint Euro Forces. Of course, someone will have to tell Our Glorious Leader, El Tone, that he won't be World President after all.
Over to you, Mr Hoon......!
Until then, Master Portaloo gets my vote as the Sof S with the least cred and b~gger all ability.
Uncle Geoffery has the potential to be the best, or the worst, Def Sec ever. On one hand, Hoon could stand up for this beleaguered bunch of masochistic loonies with whom I am proud to serve and call my comrades-in-arms. GH could realise all 3 Services are stretched to breaking point and demand a surge in defence investment..... hmmmm!?
More likely, as things surely must come to a head with Gordon 'Scrooge' Brown and the Treasury soon, GH could be the one who hammers the final nails in our coffin as we become the UK-Defence Force or the British Corps of the Joint Euro Forces. Of course, someone will have to tell Our Glorious Leader, El Tone, that he won't be World President after all.
Over to you, Mr Hoon......!
Until then, Master Portaloo gets my vote as the Sof S with the least cred and b~gger all ability.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Nott has to be the man! If Galtieri had chosen to wait another few months, we would not have been able to accomplish Op Corporate at all and the Falklands would not have been retaken! However, having said that, Messrs Portillo and Hoon come an awfully close joint second for the massive damage to Service morale over which they have both presided.
Jimlad, as you may guess from my 'handle' I was of the light blue persuasion. However, I feel that the value of the Carrier is underrated. Perhaps the hostility from the light blue comes from the idea that "if I wanted to go to sea, I'd have joined the bally Navy"
Jimlad, as you may guess from my 'handle' I was of the light blue persuasion. However, I feel that the value of the Carrier is underrated. Perhaps the hostility from the light blue comes from the idea that "if I wanted to go to sea, I'd have joined the bally Navy"
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
simple solution - give all the harriers to the navy No more moaning RAF pilots - they're in the navy now and its part of the job description!
I'm thinking of writing a book - How to destroy whats left of RAF morale in one easy step...
No more moaning RAF pilots - they're in the navy now and its part of the job description! I'm thinking of writing a book - How to destroy whats left of RAF morale in one easy step...