Forces braced for more cuts .....
At the risk of being Joint on an Air thread, if correct and not just the usual left of arc worst case scenario to make the intended proposition seem appealing, it's seems to be a major risk. A brave move as Sir Humphrey might suggest.
At a time we are trying to persuade the rest of NATO to invest more, this sends the wrong message to NATO partners and likely only serves encourages Putin's opportunism. In case Govt hadn't noticed, state on state is back, and the effective power projection mention in the Tory manifesto requires full spectrum capabilities. Unless we're now teaching well drilling, and outreach on the Platoon Comd's Battle Course because all we've got left in uniform are fighting troops and BAe aren't interested in outreach and village stability programmes in the Sahel.
And to say you can contractorise support elements without damaging fighting power is naive and shows a complete lack of awareness. The 'teeth arms' of any force are only as effective as their support enables them to be. We've seen time and again we have no appetite to pay for contractor support beyond the bare minimum. This will only end in tears, and to think we would see any reinvestment back in the RAF and RN is just fanciful.
It looks like we're in for an autumn of infighting and divide and conquer courtesy of May et al. From a promising opening speech on the steps of Downing Street, I fear she has shown herself to be a second rate PM supported by third rate minds.
At a time we are trying to persuade the rest of NATO to invest more, this sends the wrong message to NATO partners and likely only serves encourages Putin's opportunism. In case Govt hadn't noticed, state on state is back, and the effective power projection mention in the Tory manifesto requires full spectrum capabilities. Unless we're now teaching well drilling, and outreach on the Platoon Comd's Battle Course because all we've got left in uniform are fighting troops and BAe aren't interested in outreach and village stability programmes in the Sahel.
And to say you can contractorise support elements without damaging fighting power is naive and shows a complete lack of awareness. The 'teeth arms' of any force are only as effective as their support enables them to be. We've seen time and again we have no appetite to pay for contractor support beyond the bare minimum. This will only end in tears, and to think we would see any reinvestment back in the RAF and RN is just fanciful.
It looks like we're in for an autumn of infighting and divide and conquer courtesy of May et al. From a promising opening speech on the steps of Downing Street, I fear she has shown herself to be a second rate PM supported by third rate minds.
Last edited by Melchett01; 3rd Jun 2017 at 11:02.
Agreed, however cuts are inevitable: not to the coppers on the beat (and rightly so) but I'm struggling to see how the QE, and it's attendant escorts and aircraft are going to be seen in helping defeat the home-grown gen2 and 3 suicide bombers and I think the public will have the same doubts. I suspect some big capital programs will be in danger.
Agreed, however cuts are inevitable: not to the coppers on the beat (and rightly so) but I'm struggling to see how the QE, and it's attendant escorts and aircraft are going to be seen in helping defeat the home-grown gen2 and 3 suicide bombers and I think the public will have the same doubts. I suspect some big capital programs will be in danger.
No votes in defence? Not any more; you only have to listen to the emphasis (and tone) given to security when JC was questioned in the recent leaders debate.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Sack Fallon after the election because (a)he looks too old and is very puffy pink faced and (b) he's gaff prone and still sounds more of a liability than an asset. Replace him with someone younger more applicable.
2. Form new security units possible based along the lines of the French GIGN. Might have difficulty doing this, but it may be necessary for the future in the UK.
3. Because in addition to the above I think the current carve up of response units in the UK looks rather bitty in reaction to the current ongoing atrocities- this has to be addressed but it wont be easy to tie together. I mean by that - could we do better? We have UK civ police, army, 2 x types of special forces, British transport police, secret services MI5 and MI6, RAF people now as well.....must be a nightmare trying to coordinate all of the this to respond. Could it be better?
4. Drag the RAF into protecting our airspace from Drone and UAV terror attacks (which we are going to get somewhere or other at some time in the future, and sooner rather than later. Perhaps it is time for manned armed units to defend key sites? (I don't know)
5. Likewise RN against coastal unmanned maritime attack.
6. I don't think the public would be happy to see large scale expensive and questionable expeditionary warfare mounted via the carriers abroad, when under the thumb with further deep austerity measures and further terror attacks from within.
Where that exactly leaves them I'm just not sure.
7. We are going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul, as ever.
My two cents. HS.
2. Form new security units possible based along the lines of the French GIGN. Might have difficulty doing this, but it may be necessary for the future in the UK.
3. Because in addition to the above I think the current carve up of response units in the UK looks rather bitty in reaction to the current ongoing atrocities- this has to be addressed but it wont be easy to tie together. I mean by that - could we do better? We have UK civ police, army, 2 x types of special forces, British transport police, secret services MI5 and MI6, RAF people now as well.....must be a nightmare trying to coordinate all of the this to respond. Could it be better?
4. Drag the RAF into protecting our airspace from Drone and UAV terror attacks (which we are going to get somewhere or other at some time in the future, and sooner rather than later. Perhaps it is time for manned armed units to defend key sites? (I don't know)
5. Likewise RN against coastal unmanned maritime attack.
6. I don't think the public would be happy to see large scale expensive and questionable expeditionary warfare mounted via the carriers abroad, when under the thumb with further deep austerity measures and further terror attacks from within.
Where that exactly leaves them I'm just not sure.
7. We are going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul, as ever.
My two cents. HS.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with HQ on this one - how do you defend spending on the F-35 & Carrier programmes when you are cutting infantry and the police?
People will accept higher defence spending but they will want it spent on bodies on the ground here not expensive programmes for kit
Also hard to sell Mr Putin as the greatest threat to the UK when the problems are clearly here already .
If you want an armed response within 8 minutes of any incident - as they achieved last night in London - you're going to need a lot more armed police - not soldiers necessarily
People will accept higher defence spending but they will want it spent on bodies on the ground here not expensive programmes for kit
Also hard to sell Mr Putin as the greatest threat to the UK when the problems are clearly here already .
If you want an armed response within 8 minutes of any incident - as they achieved last night in London - you're going to need a lot more armed police - not soldiers necessarily
Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 4th Jun 2017 at 14:26.
I'm with HQ on this one - how do you defend spending on the F-35 & Carrier programmes when you are cutting infantry and the police?
People will accept higher defence spending but they will want it spent on bodies on the ground here not expensive programmes for kit
Also hard to sell Mr Putin as the greatest threat to the UK when the problems are clearly here already .
People will accept higher defence spending but they will want it spent on bodies on the ground here not expensive programmes for kit
Also hard to sell Mr Putin as the greatest threat to the UK when the problems are clearly here already .
Domestic CT is but one part of security, and it needs to be resourced appropriately. But be under no mistake, as terrible as these events are, they do not represent an existential threat. To trade the defence budget to support policing and CT is a bit like ringing your insurer to say you only want to insure one floor of your home. You wouldn't do it, so why would you not invest in the full spectrum of capabilities needed to enable a credible all round defence and security posture? To wait until the threats have fully materialised is too late. The politicians need to wake up to this fact and do their jobs properly. And that means making sensible decisions, appropriately resourcing them, and where potentially unpopular explaining them to the public openly and honestly.
If money is short, I suggest we start to seriously look at how we do business. Not my area, but from what I read procurement is an expensive shambles, seemingly often driven by expensive politics rather than actual necessity; the amount we spend on management consultants to tell us how to do our own business is obscene and needs to be stopped; and how we do foreign aid needs to be reviewed to ensure it links into our national security strategy to assist in upstream prevention rather than making bleeding hearts feel good. And whatever savings those steps make need to go back into defence and security spending rather than being pulled back to the Treasury to be frittered away.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I've posted repeatedly until the politicians start telling people they may have to pay more then we're just fooling ourselves - and that applies to the NHS, care for the elderly, schools as well as the military
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some previous posts are really wise.
The starting point should always be the threat model. Not in the form of a political propaganda with a 1-page statement in manifestos, but a detailed evaluation of various threats, quantitative estimation of their likelyhood, potential damages, etc. And doing it every now and then because the threat environment changes rapidly and so the model should, not every quarter century or even a decade.Then, stream the available resources to cost-effectively maximise the prevented damage. Sounds pretty trivial and well-known, but politician all around the world love to ignore the basics (and many just never studied it). Moreover, any political opposition simply does not have relevant data (they are classified), instruments and staff for such analyses, but often cry very loud. High-level military do have all the above but often stick to their favorite toys and programmes. The explanations often are: "country X does/has it, we should have it too", "we were doing/having that for decades", etc. To avoid blaming others, an appropriate example from my own country: what hell do they need this old rusted air carrier that recently lost two planes in Mediterranean? The country does not have overseas territories (like, e.g., UK, for which necessity of having such ships does not need further justification) and the money wasted could be used much more effectively in other programmes.
The starting point should always be the threat model. Not in the form of a political propaganda with a 1-page statement in manifestos, but a detailed evaluation of various threats, quantitative estimation of their likelyhood, potential damages, etc. And doing it every now and then because the threat environment changes rapidly and so the model should, not every quarter century or even a decade.Then, stream the available resources to cost-effectively maximise the prevented damage. Sounds pretty trivial and well-known, but politician all around the world love to ignore the basics (and many just never studied it). Moreover, any political opposition simply does not have relevant data (they are classified), instruments and staff for such analyses, but often cry very loud. High-level military do have all the above but often stick to their favorite toys and programmes. The explanations often are: "country X does/has it, we should have it too", "we were doing/having that for decades", etc. To avoid blaming others, an appropriate example from my own country: what hell do they need this old rusted air carrier that recently lost two planes in Mediterranean? The country does not have overseas territories (like, e.g., UK, for which necessity of having such ships does not need further justification) and the money wasted could be used much more effectively in other programmes.
A Van
(In the UK MoD) threat assessments are required in each new requirement, so we have people constantly writing them. Whether or not they are read and collated is a different matter. And, as you say, few politicians understand even the basics, and our Defence Committee is more concerned with business lunches for senior officers.
Additionally, any significant programme includes a "Battlefield + date" paper, usually looking forward 15 years. Their weakness is they must assume planned programmes survive and are delivered on time. For example, with hindsight the Battlefield 2015 paper (March 2001) was rendered obsolete within a year by the reduction in funding for the main dependent programme, from over £4Bn to around £500M. The author had moved on and I doubt it was updated. So, any programme using it as a baseline was doomed from Day 1.
One problem at the working level is that the papers often reveal lack of appreciation of basic policy directives. Again, using the Battlefield 2015 paper, it assumed interoperability between UK and its allies. That was a hell of a jump, given that at the time it was strict policy not be interoperable between our own forces, never mind allies. Little has changed, and viewed today that 2015 paper is a list of distant aspirations.
(In the UK MoD) threat assessments are required in each new requirement, so we have people constantly writing them. Whether or not they are read and collated is a different matter. And, as you say, few politicians understand even the basics, and our Defence Committee is more concerned with business lunches for senior officers.
Additionally, any significant programme includes a "Battlefield + date" paper, usually looking forward 15 years. Their weakness is they must assume planned programmes survive and are delivered on time. For example, with hindsight the Battlefield 2015 paper (March 2001) was rendered obsolete within a year by the reduction in funding for the main dependent programme, from over £4Bn to around £500M. The author had moved on and I doubt it was updated. So, any programme using it as a baseline was doomed from Day 1.
One problem at the working level is that the papers often reveal lack of appreciation of basic policy directives. Again, using the Battlefield 2015 paper, it assumed interoperability between UK and its allies. That was a hell of a jump, given that at the time it was strict policy not be interoperable between our own forces, never mind allies. Little has changed, and viewed today that 2015 paper is a list of distant aspirations.
It is stark-staring bleeding obvious that the UK Gov / MOD have got their budget versus capabilities equation totally wrong for where we are as a "nation" (small N, things are going downhill fast), going forward. The worst case is the giant war canoe situation. This debacle has left the RN unable to hold its head up in shallow water. What a ridiculous waste of a limited naval budget that should have been centred upon defence of our waters, not squandered on power projection and expeditionary cloud cuckoo land. 
OAP
OAP
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember on the CVS in 1998 the new carrier project was often talked about. Even during the Bosnia thing from 1993-95 (those dates applicable for me anyway) it was pretty obvious the RN FAA always was trying to wag its own tail and look to its master for the funding in the future....for new carriers
At the time I suppose that was reasonable.
Perhaps something will happen in our immediate short term future to make the project look like far sightedness.
But in the light of yesterday, I cant see it. I presently cant see the point of them or the expense.
At the time I suppose that was reasonable.
Perhaps something will happen in our immediate short term future to make the project look like far sightedness.
But in the light of yesterday, I cant see it. I presently cant see the point of them or the expense.
3. Because in addition to the above I think the current carve up of response units in the UK looks rather bitty in reaction to the current ongoing atrocities- this has to be addressed but it wont be easy to tie together. I mean by that - could we do better? We have UK civ police, army, 2 x types of special forces, British transport police, secret services MI5 and MI6, RAF people now as well.....must be a nightmare trying to coordinate all of the this to respond. Could it be better?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far from an urgent need for reorganisation, last nights events would seem IMHO to highlight the effectiveness of our current armed response units. Not that that stopped Corbyn taking his cue for opportunist point-scoring. Pretty amazing brass-neck considering his previous comments against police shooting, ambivalence towards IRA terrorism and numerous votes against anti-terror legislation
Don't think he presided over the loss of 20,000 police officers,including 1000 + armed response & 30,000+ reduction in members of the military. Don't read or trust the Mail or Telegraph so have realised he's no terrorist supporter or apologist.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Don't read or trust the Mail or Telegraph so have realised he's no terrorist supporter or apologist.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How outrageous that with blood still on the pavements he's crowing about police cuts. Which were only forced by the utter financial disaster inflicted by his party. Even though the police performed superbly; all assailants dead within eight minutes! Yet Corbyn did his utmost to block introduction of these courageous police tactics which saved so many lives.
Last edited by ShotOne; 5th Jun 2017 at 07:00.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a good case that whoever had won that election would have faced a massive struggle. Many big-ticket items ordered by Gordon and Tony were simply not funded.
As Home Secretary, Theresa May authorised the change in police tactics used successfully on Saturday. Corbyn did his best to block this. Just as he did numerous times on anti-terror laws without which our security forces would face a near-impossible task. And "apologist" is not nearly strong enough for those in current Labour leadership who brayed that a defeat of the British state by the IRA would be a good thing!
As Home Secretary, Theresa May authorised the change in police tactics used successfully on Saturday. Corbyn did his best to block this. Just as he did numerous times on anti-terror laws without which our security forces would face a near-impossible task. And "apologist" is not nearly strong enough for those in current Labour leadership who brayed that a defeat of the British state by the IRA would be a good thing!
She spouted exactly that - it's not about numbers, it's all about police powers, TTPs and permissions. No it isn't. Well not entirely. 8 minutes from flash to bang - a fantastic response, and I absolutely take my hat off to those involved for a job very well done. But how much of their response time was due to being in the right place? With hundreds of fewer officers, you run the risk of gaps opening up that can't be filled in such a timely manner simply by training or authorities. But even more breath takingly stupid is the inability to see that cutting overall police numbers has had the effect of reducing tactical level intelligence gathering traditionally done by Bobbies on the beat who knew their AO, knew the characters, what they were up to and where the issues were. I don't care what the PM or any of her cabinet say, numbers matter when you're trying to deal with and monitor the equivalent of a full Championship football team stadium.