UK military ill-prepared to defend an attack, says retired chief
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Pretty on par for the course, doesn't have the balls to go public and tell it how it is when in post, probably worried about his pension, totally spineless bunch of sycophants.
Rather like the exChancellor pushing the Northern power house crap, the fact that he could have done something tangible about it when he was in the position too, it just shows him as using it as a stepping stone to resurrect his career.
Rather like the exChancellor pushing the Northern power house crap, the fact that he could have done something tangible about it when he was in the position too, it just shows him as using it as a stepping stone to resurrect his career.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius is correct - Trident is our backstop against an attack by Russia
I found the General's ramblings seriuosly weird - as if we are going to be fighting the Ruskis on our own - God knows how they'd get here - a few bombers round N Cape otherwise they have all of Eurpe in the way...............
Good job we've got friends there eh? .... Oh... I forgot............
I found the General's ramblings seriuosly weird - as if we are going to be fighting the Ruskis on our own - God knows how they'd get here - a few bombers round N Cape otherwise they have all of Eurpe in the way...............
Good job we've got friends there eh? .... Oh... I forgot............
Nutloose:-
Not that you feel particularly strongly about them, eh Nutty? Having disposed of the messenger though, there is still his message to consider...
HH:-
That rather supposes that they will obligingly Nuke us first, doesn't it? Also, the good General didn't mention the Russians anyway, did he? Pre Entente Cordiale France rather than Germany was odds on to be next on our dance card. "Events, dear boy", as someone once remarked...
As for NATO, it seems that the EU has a rather different cunning plan that would now rather exclude us. If the EU itself unravels of course then "interesting times" are just around the corner. We need to be stocking up on big sticks right now it seems to me.
doesn't have the balls to go public and tell it how it is when in post, probably worried about his pension, totally spineless bunch of sycophants.
HH:-
Trident is our backstop against an attack by Russia
As for NATO, it seems that the EU has a rather different cunning plan that would now rather exclude us. If the EU itself unravels of course then "interesting times" are just around the corner. We need to be stocking up on big sticks right now it seems to me.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty on par for the course, doesn't have the balls to go public and tell it how it is when in post, probably worried about his pension, totally spineless bunch of sycophants.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,what are you really talking about?
Since the times when more or less serious multi-nation European wars began in the end of 18th century, Russia (the tzar empire, then soviet empire and, nowadays, a wild capitalistic regime) never had plans to invade or attack British territory. Putting "all the lyrics" aside and speaking just military wise, there were never enough ships to bring enough troops across the pond.
The worst case scenario might be a conflict between the US/NATO and Russian forces triggered by an unintentional strike on one part by another, somewhere in the Middle East or Asia. Taking just a yesterday's case: because of poor or unprofessional ISR services, the US planes seriously hit the Syrian army. Erroneously, as they say. Who knows, maybe the next time they hit, in the same way, a Russian base? No doubt they would get much more in response and the hell might start, but unlikely to enter the BM exchange phase. Anyway, Britain is too far away from such areas.Your planes even cannot reach a potential conflict area from the Island, thus their bases would be of no interest to strike back.
My advice is to relax and sleep well :-)
Since the times when more or less serious multi-nation European wars began in the end of 18th century, Russia (the tzar empire, then soviet empire and, nowadays, a wild capitalistic regime) never had plans to invade or attack British territory. Putting "all the lyrics" aside and speaking just military wise, there were never enough ships to bring enough troops across the pond.
The worst case scenario might be a conflict between the US/NATO and Russian forces triggered by an unintentional strike on one part by another, somewhere in the Middle East or Asia. Taking just a yesterday's case: because of poor or unprofessional ISR services, the US planes seriously hit the Syrian army. Erroneously, as they say. Who knows, maybe the next time they hit, in the same way, a Russian base? No doubt they would get much more in response and the hell might start, but unlikely to enter the BM exchange phase. Anyway, Britain is too far away from such areas.Your planes even cannot reach a potential conflict area from the Island, thus their bases would be of no interest to strike back.
My advice is to relax and sleep well :-)
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A_Vanski,
Taking your national pride to one side for a second, please remember that Russian Federation aircraft have been indiscriminately bombing Assad's enemies (i.e. the wider Syrian, rebel populous) since they entered the conflict for their own self-serving ends. When I say "indiscriminately bombing" I refer to SU-34 and TU bombers releasing sticks of 30+ year-old iron bombs over large areas of Syrian turf.
The US have apparently made an error. In that regard, it's perhaps fortunate for you resurgent "reds" that the US aren't in the game of publishing and then spinning the errors of Russian forces' conduct in each instance.
As to your point regarding the UK's security, nobody with a serious hand in Defence has really considered a direct, physical, Russian attack a distinct threat. However, Putin underestimates the resolve of NATO and Article 5, regardless of the fumbling state the EU finds itself in. Therefore, any threat to NATO, as a whole, will be met every member. We've been there before and know the consequences.
Anyway, you Russkies will be out of cash just over a year from now.
Ouch.
Taking your national pride to one side for a second, please remember that Russian Federation aircraft have been indiscriminately bombing Assad's enemies (i.e. the wider Syrian, rebel populous) since they entered the conflict for their own self-serving ends. When I say "indiscriminately bombing" I refer to SU-34 and TU bombers releasing sticks of 30+ year-old iron bombs over large areas of Syrian turf.
The US have apparently made an error. In that regard, it's perhaps fortunate for you resurgent "reds" that the US aren't in the game of publishing and then spinning the errors of Russian forces' conduct in each instance.
As to your point regarding the UK's security, nobody with a serious hand in Defence has really considered a direct, physical, Russian attack a distinct threat. However, Putin underestimates the resolve of NATO and Article 5, regardless of the fumbling state the EU finds itself in. Therefore, any threat to NATO, as a whole, will be met every member. We've been there before and know the consequences.
Anyway, you Russkies will be out of cash just over a year from now.
Ouch.
Taking your national pride to one side for a second, please remember that Russian Federation aircraft have been indiscriminately bombing Assad's enemies (i.e. the wider Syrian, rebel populous) since they entered the conflict for their own self-serving ends. When I say "indiscriminately bombing" I refer to SU-34 and TU bombers releasing sticks of 30+ year-old iron bombs over large areas of Syrian turf.
Under what law were the above countrys using to aid people shooting and murdering people.
We have had 2 reports this year, Chilcott on Iraq and Commons Select on Libya................... neither of which gave any credibility to Government lies of what they required military to do.
The US have apparently made an error. In that regard, it's perhaps fortunate for you resurgent "reds" that the US aren't in the game of publishing and then spinning the errors of Russian forces' conduct in each instance.
As to your point regarding the UK's security, nobody with a serious hand in Defence has really considered a direct, physical, Russian attack a distinct threat. However, Putin underestimates the resolve of NATO and Article 5, regardless of the fumbling state the EU finds itself in. Therefore, any threat to NATO, as a whole, will be met every member. We've been there before and know the consequence
It's perhaps a bit of a shame that he chose to take as his example the scenario of a direct attack on the UK by Russia. Even back in the cold war days when our forces were much bigger I don't think anyone ever imagined we would be in a position to take on the Soviet Union single-handedly. Indeed ISTR in the event of a frontal attack, the combined forces of NATO in Europe were expected to be in steady reverse gear while buying enough time for US reinforcements to arrive or until such time as buckets of sunshine were invoked.
That and the "sour grapes" allegation has distracted from the fact that he raises some valid concerns about what we're resourced to do, should world events force us to go beyond beyond peacetime or limited operations whose time and duration we choose.
Forgetting a frontal Russian assault, how much do we have in the cupboard as scenarios notch up step by step in what is after all an increasingly unpredictable and unstable world? Is the UK weapons inventory just fine? Has the optimum balance been struck, given that we live in a democracy? Or has the peace dividend been cashed in so enthusiastically that we're running a bit too much of a risk given the times we live in? I know what I think, but clearly a range of views are available.
In waiting until after retirement he has been no different to a succession of other top brass. People might feel it should be different, but it isn't - and anyway, as has been noted, rocking the boat internally may well be what cost him.
That and the "sour grapes" allegation has distracted from the fact that he raises some valid concerns about what we're resourced to do, should world events force us to go beyond beyond peacetime or limited operations whose time and duration we choose.
Forgetting a frontal Russian assault, how much do we have in the cupboard as scenarios notch up step by step in what is after all an increasingly unpredictable and unstable world? Is the UK weapons inventory just fine? Has the optimum balance been struck, given that we live in a democracy? Or has the peace dividend been cashed in so enthusiastically that we're running a bit too much of a risk given the times we live in? I know what I think, but clearly a range of views are available.
In waiting until after retirement he has been no different to a succession of other top brass. People might feel it should be different, but it isn't - and anyway, as has been noted, rocking the boat internally may well be what cost him.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Is there any harm in an EU army
The plot, according to the papers, is that France and Germany would field a force stronger than NATO. Perhaps the German Chancellor and the French President have never heard of the USA?
NATO works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a slowly developing sound of a penny dropping among the paper reading British peoples that something is not right with the UK military. The Daily Mail has consistently ran a story for weeks about the alleged failings of the Type 45 class languishing in Portsmouth, and the new carrier build problem is well known.
Other failings are equally pounced upon by the press and I think overall the perception is not that good..
But are the British even sure about what they want their military to do anymore? Protect them, yes, but how?
Expeditionary ground warfare- no.
Border control to dispel (by force) unarmed illegal immigrants? Probably. Air Defence from unknown unspoken half guessed threats? Yes, this has massive resonance still, especially bombing raids/air attack as history shows us.
My two cents? We will eventually leave NATO anyway, after a major falling out with our European allies triggered by money which was originally triggered by BREXIT. I'm serious - I've said this before, we will eventually leave them to it. We will eventually build a high level layered air defence system and smarter future air weapons system at the total expense of our land army. In fact the RN and RAF will be possibly an amalgamation to do just that, with very little traditional Army left at all to fight anywhere, least of all Russia in mainland Europe. We will keep a future ICBM system as "an insurance" at massive expense , so its likely if they do attack anyway and succeed its just about 50/50 we are straight to nuclear weaponry anyway. As I said, my two cents. And I probably gave more thought to this highly debateable strategy/ musing in 20 minutes than Dave C. gave in 5 years as PM. Goodnight.
Other failings are equally pounced upon by the press and I think overall the perception is not that good..
But are the British even sure about what they want their military to do anymore? Protect them, yes, but how?
Expeditionary ground warfare- no.
Border control to dispel (by force) unarmed illegal immigrants? Probably. Air Defence from unknown unspoken half guessed threats? Yes, this has massive resonance still, especially bombing raids/air attack as history shows us.
My two cents? We will eventually leave NATO anyway, after a major falling out with our European allies triggered by money which was originally triggered by BREXIT. I'm serious - I've said this before, we will eventually leave them to it. We will eventually build a high level layered air defence system and smarter future air weapons system at the total expense of our land army. In fact the RN and RAF will be possibly an amalgamation to do just that, with very little traditional Army left at all to fight anywhere, least of all Russia in mainland Europe. We will keep a future ICBM system as "an insurance" at massive expense , so its likely if they do attack anyway and succeed its just about 50/50 we are straight to nuclear weaponry anyway. As I said, my two cents. And I probably gave more thought to this highly debateable strategy/ musing in 20 minutes than Dave C. gave in 5 years as PM. Goodnight.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty on par for the course, doesn't have the balls to go public and tell it how it is when in post, probably worried about his pension, totally spineless bunch of sycophants.
Not entirely sure what to make of this. The immediate obvious response is to say 'hello hello, recently retired General, pension in the bag, starts to criticise now out of uniform.' But I think that misses part of the story - he was in the running for CDS, and from numerous sources, was believed to be a strong contender. So when he didn't get it, it was a surprise to many and comments such as:
"Counter-terrorism is the limit of up-to-date plans and preparations to secure our airspace, waters and territory," he said. "Neither the UK homeland nor a deployed force could be protected from a concerted Russian air effort."
might well be seen as a swipe at the Establishment. After all, Defence's CT capability, as is, resides in JFC at the 4-star level. So to say this, his previous command, is the only bit of the ship in decent order whilst the single Services are not so well prepared can only be seen as a Jim Bowen/Bullseye-esque 'here's what you could have won' if you'd picked me moment to Fallon.
As for the Army growing used to operating from safe bases in the middle of nowhere, you then have to ask how much he was responsible for that. Deployed operations are largely the responsibility of PJHQ and CJO, both his area. Or is this another suggestion that politicians and senior single service staffs are not prepared to take risk on operations and therefore we haven't been as successful as we might have otherwise been? When you look at what happened to the US commanders who were effectively sacked after the Battle of Bastion, is it any wonder commanders aren't prepared to take risk.
As for the rest, well it's true. We're stretched to past the point of no return without considerable recapitalisation and breathing space to do so effectively and sustainably, not just in terms of numbers on a spreadsheet . We will get neither. And the idea of an effective rising defence budget is utter rubbish when one considers defence inflation, constantly changing political decisions, and a budget focused on procuring exquisite technology that will arrive in too small a number to be effective. A total more suited to a regional actor and which will be unable to satisfy a political requirement to act on the global stage, and which per unit will be so expensive that it nobody will want to take the blame for losing a single aircraft, ship or tank. It comes to something when it looks as though we are heading to a situation where it will be politically more acceptable to lose a campaign than a ship or aircraft. After all, you can fudge the former but not the latter, so maybe this influences a risk averse attitude and planning ops from safe locations in the middle of nowhere.
As for the Defence source, did whomever it was really believe what they were saying? It's that sort of delusion rubbish that's got us in this mess. Whomever it was needs to start taking their meds and take a very long lie down in a dark room until the insanity has passed. They are clearly so far removed from the frontline that they lack the credibility to be any position of authority. Whitehall warriors at their worst.
"Counter-terrorism is the limit of up-to-date plans and preparations to secure our airspace, waters and territory," he said. "Neither the UK homeland nor a deployed force could be protected from a concerted Russian air effort."
might well be seen as a swipe at the Establishment. After all, Defence's CT capability, as is, resides in JFC at the 4-star level. So to say this, his previous command, is the only bit of the ship in decent order whilst the single Services are not so well prepared can only be seen as a Jim Bowen/Bullseye-esque 'here's what you could have won' if you'd picked me moment to Fallon.
As for the Army growing used to operating from safe bases in the middle of nowhere, you then have to ask how much he was responsible for that. Deployed operations are largely the responsibility of PJHQ and CJO, both his area. Or is this another suggestion that politicians and senior single service staffs are not prepared to take risk on operations and therefore we haven't been as successful as we might have otherwise been? When you look at what happened to the US commanders who were effectively sacked after the Battle of Bastion, is it any wonder commanders aren't prepared to take risk.
As for the rest, well it's true. We're stretched to past the point of no return without considerable recapitalisation and breathing space to do so effectively and sustainably, not just in terms of numbers on a spreadsheet . We will get neither. And the idea of an effective rising defence budget is utter rubbish when one considers defence inflation, constantly changing political decisions, and a budget focused on procuring exquisite technology that will arrive in too small a number to be effective. A total more suited to a regional actor and which will be unable to satisfy a political requirement to act on the global stage, and which per unit will be so expensive that it nobody will want to take the blame for losing a single aircraft, ship or tank. It comes to something when it looks as though we are heading to a situation where it will be politically more acceptable to lose a campaign than a ship or aircraft. After all, you can fudge the former but not the latter, so maybe this influences a risk averse attitude and planning ops from safe locations in the middle of nowhere.
As for the Defence source, did whomever it was really believe what they were saying? It's that sort of delusion rubbish that's got us in this mess. Whomever it was needs to start taking their meds and take a very long lie down in a dark room until the insanity has passed. They are clearly so far removed from the frontline that they lack the credibility to be any position of authority. Whitehall warriors at their worst.
Last edited by Melchett01; 18th Sep 2016 at 22:27.
The good general was interviewed on Radio 4's PM programme on Saturday afternoon. He said:
"If you’re wrestling with too much programme and not enough budget, year on year, you have to do something about it. Particularly if you’re in a climate where the nation wants to spend its money on other things, and then you’re dealing with the effects of austerity from 2008 onwards. So what do you do? You hire fewer people and you buy less kit and then you resource it less well. So you have to strip money out of the engineering support, you take stocks off the shelves, and you use it less, and that is hollowing out. And that has been, in most respects, I think, an entirely reasonable thing to do, because no-one felt that we were in great existential peril. And now I think we need to ask ourselves two questions.
The first thing is, do we feel more threatened now, are we at more risk. Because if we do then maybe we should do something about it.
And secondly you have to look at what potential opponents have, and people that we’re not on the greatest terms with, who we don’t necessarily align our national interests with, they have looked very thoughtfully at Western military capability and over a period of time have invested in things that are designed to either keep it at arms’ length or to counter it.
Q: Are we at more risk, because you say in the memo that there is no military plan to defend the UK against conventional armed conflict – which sounds rather worrying. Is that true, are we in danger from Russia for example, which has been building up its forces?
Russia and other countres have changed the way that they prosecute competition, confrontation and conflict. And you’ve seen that in Crimea, and Ukraine and Georgia. And you see aspects of that, just waged in a small way in places like the Baltic States, from time to time. That’s about hybrid warfare and the use of proxies and cyber.
Is our current inventory and way of doing business fit to deal with this new way of warfare. And then you align it with two things. One is changing capability. So, for example, until very recently, the UK was not in range, and therefore not at risk from things like conventionally tipped ballistic missiles, so weapons that appear at great speed, that have not a nuclear weapon on the end but a conventional weapon, that are very very precise. And I think most people would want the Armed Forces to know how to deal with those things, and to be equipped to deal with them. And the answer to that question is a bit mixed.
The fact is that what Russia has, it holds at a higher state of readiness, so we have allowed a window of opportunism or miscalculation to arise, and really, all I’m arguing for is, let’s take our eyes off defending the assumptions of a reasonably comfortable recent past and have a look as the world as it’s turning out in terms of situations and capability and method and just test our defence solution against that.
And I think we’ll find that means that you might take some of the stuff that we’re already going to have and use it differently, and then I think, seizing on the advantages of the information age I think we’ll decide we want to buy some different stuff for a different future.
Q: Why then did you speak out just before you retired? Did you speak out sooner? Did you want to speak out sooner?
Many of these issues I am absolutely clear I have been talking about for five years and for a number of appointments. And I’ve also felt that I wasn’t able to persuade Government – and this is a lot more the Ministry of Defence - I wasn’t able to persuade Government to consider a lot of these things because there were other things to worry about terrorism for example, and the many other claims on the public purse.
The defence review last year, I felt, was a success, and there were some decisions taken that …. For example the bold decision taken to peg defence spending at 2% of GDP reversed the decline of decades. I thought that was courageous and very successful.
The decision to switch some investment – more money in special forces, to buy the P-9 (Sic) reconnaissance aircraft, to make sure we had 100% availability of the carriers, I thought that was all very good.
But that was all really a discussion about marginal change to the equipment programme and frankly a rather desparate search for efficiencies in defence to pay for those up areas. It wasn’t a very broad ranging or transformative debate. And I argued in the approach to that defence review, through it and after it, that if you like a normal jogging approach was not going to meet the demands of the future and I feel now as a matter of conscience, now that I’m no longer a public servant that it’s time that we tried to have that debate.
I felt that I could never get the debate started because it was held to be a bit abstract, difficult and expensive. And as a result of that we just focused on the marginal fight to preserve the defence programme broadly as it is, within the bold move to commit 2% of GDP.
(Q: EU army?)
It’s almost a dialogue of the deaf, because what I think the EU means in constructing a European Army is a very light, almost paramilitary thing with the sort of capability that you need to do peacekeeping or a humanitarian intervention. That is not the debate that we need to be having. We need to be talking about how you deal with really high end, high tech threats, not re-setting the bounds of the former Cold War. And I fear that this sort of European army agenda will take away attention and resources from the debate that we really need to have.
"If you’re wrestling with too much programme and not enough budget, year on year, you have to do something about it. Particularly if you’re in a climate where the nation wants to spend its money on other things, and then you’re dealing with the effects of austerity from 2008 onwards. So what do you do? You hire fewer people and you buy less kit and then you resource it less well. So you have to strip money out of the engineering support, you take stocks off the shelves, and you use it less, and that is hollowing out. And that has been, in most respects, I think, an entirely reasonable thing to do, because no-one felt that we were in great existential peril. And now I think we need to ask ourselves two questions.
The first thing is, do we feel more threatened now, are we at more risk. Because if we do then maybe we should do something about it.
And secondly you have to look at what potential opponents have, and people that we’re not on the greatest terms with, who we don’t necessarily align our national interests with, they have looked very thoughtfully at Western military capability and over a period of time have invested in things that are designed to either keep it at arms’ length or to counter it.
Q: Are we at more risk, because you say in the memo that there is no military plan to defend the UK against conventional armed conflict – which sounds rather worrying. Is that true, are we in danger from Russia for example, which has been building up its forces?
Russia and other countres have changed the way that they prosecute competition, confrontation and conflict. And you’ve seen that in Crimea, and Ukraine and Georgia. And you see aspects of that, just waged in a small way in places like the Baltic States, from time to time. That’s about hybrid warfare and the use of proxies and cyber.
Is our current inventory and way of doing business fit to deal with this new way of warfare. And then you align it with two things. One is changing capability. So, for example, until very recently, the UK was not in range, and therefore not at risk from things like conventionally tipped ballistic missiles, so weapons that appear at great speed, that have not a nuclear weapon on the end but a conventional weapon, that are very very precise. And I think most people would want the Armed Forces to know how to deal with those things, and to be equipped to deal with them. And the answer to that question is a bit mixed.
The fact is that what Russia has, it holds at a higher state of readiness, so we have allowed a window of opportunism or miscalculation to arise, and really, all I’m arguing for is, let’s take our eyes off defending the assumptions of a reasonably comfortable recent past and have a look as the world as it’s turning out in terms of situations and capability and method and just test our defence solution against that.
And I think we’ll find that means that you might take some of the stuff that we’re already going to have and use it differently, and then I think, seizing on the advantages of the information age I think we’ll decide we want to buy some different stuff for a different future.
Q: Why then did you speak out just before you retired? Did you speak out sooner? Did you want to speak out sooner?
Many of these issues I am absolutely clear I have been talking about for five years and for a number of appointments. And I’ve also felt that I wasn’t able to persuade Government – and this is a lot more the Ministry of Defence - I wasn’t able to persuade Government to consider a lot of these things because there were other things to worry about terrorism for example, and the many other claims on the public purse.
The defence review last year, I felt, was a success, and there were some decisions taken that …. For example the bold decision taken to peg defence spending at 2% of GDP reversed the decline of decades. I thought that was courageous and very successful.
The decision to switch some investment – more money in special forces, to buy the P-9 (Sic) reconnaissance aircraft, to make sure we had 100% availability of the carriers, I thought that was all very good.
But that was all really a discussion about marginal change to the equipment programme and frankly a rather desparate search for efficiencies in defence to pay for those up areas. It wasn’t a very broad ranging or transformative debate. And I argued in the approach to that defence review, through it and after it, that if you like a normal jogging approach was not going to meet the demands of the future and I feel now as a matter of conscience, now that I’m no longer a public servant that it’s time that we tried to have that debate.
I felt that I could never get the debate started because it was held to be a bit abstract, difficult and expensive. And as a result of that we just focused on the marginal fight to preserve the defence programme broadly as it is, within the bold move to commit 2% of GDP.
(Q: EU army?)
It’s almost a dialogue of the deaf, because what I think the EU means in constructing a European Army is a very light, almost paramilitary thing with the sort of capability that you need to do peacekeeping or a humanitarian intervention. That is not the debate that we need to be having. We need to be talking about how you deal with really high end, high tech threats, not re-setting the bounds of the former Cold War. And I fear that this sort of European army agenda will take away attention and resources from the debate that we really need to have.
Thanks Jacko - an interesting dit.
That appears to be eminently sensible - "lets put some depth and sustainability back into our force structure" and add some marginal stuff to existing equipment to counter specific threats - thinking.
What he seems to be suggesting is that there is a real need to debate whether 2% GDP is sufficient - as opposed to the default assumptions prevalent throughout defence that we will always need to do more with less (ie budgets will always flatline or reduce) and that people are too expensive and should therefore be minimised. Both valid arguments, but not facts and not necessarily sustainable beyond a certain point.
You can see why it (and it's messenger - sorry!) might end up being unpopular in Whitehall.
That appears to be eminently sensible - "lets put some depth and sustainability back into our force structure" and add some marginal stuff to existing equipment to counter specific threats - thinking.
What he seems to be suggesting is that there is a real need to debate whether 2% GDP is sufficient - as opposed to the default assumptions prevalent throughout defence that we will always need to do more with less (ie budgets will always flatline or reduce) and that people are too expensive and should therefore be minimised. Both valid arguments, but not facts and not necessarily sustainable beyond a certain point.
You can see why it (and it's messenger - sorry!) might end up being unpopular in Whitehall.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBH for years we've suffered from a lack of PEOPLE - the poor bloody infantry, marine engineers, aircraft mechanics.
Never any shortage of SO's, managers and consultants but in the end we're always short of the guys at the bottom of the ladder
We spend money on platforms but without the manpower its all a bit of a waste
Never any shortage of SO's, managers and consultants but in the end we're always short of the guys at the bottom of the ladder
We spend money on platforms but without the manpower its all a bit of a waste
Originally Posted by Frostchamber
Indeed ISTR in the event of a frontal attack, the combined forces of NATO in Europe were expected to be in steady reverse gear while buying enough time for US reinforcements to arrive or until such time as buckets of sunshine were invoked.
I am still puzzled at why anyone thinks that the UK will be leaving NATO? Seriously: how does that advance the interests of the UK?
I seem to remember reading that until about 1935, the Treasury insisted that the Defence Budget be predicated on "no war for ten years". Seems a similar thing today.....
Sadly.....Yet another "No sh*t? Sherlock" moment
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
I am still puzzled at why anyone thinks that the UK will be leaving NATO? Seriously: how does that advance the interests of the UK?
I'm not sure why Hangarshuffle thinks that we would. It would be a very stupid move and therefore very unlikely.