Times details proposed UK defence cut options
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What? You mean that the Army hasn't fallen into the trap of thinking 'drive 'plane - therefore you are capable of doing anything..'?
The RAF is a train on one set of tracks with a strop signal at every opportunity.
The other 2 services regard their crews as normal people, not demi-Gods, employ flexi-track and are much more fun to work for, alongside and with.
End of. Give RW to FAA/AAC.
The RAF is a train on one set of tracks with a strop signal at every opportunity.
The other 2 services regard their crews as normal people, not demi-Gods, employ flexi-track and are much more fun to work for, alongside and with.
End of. Give RW to FAA/AAC.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the above 15 or so posts illustrate so much of what is wrong with our RW aviation setup - the tri-service bickering does zip all for any of us, and inhibits us at every step.
How about going radical - post everyone, under whatever guise to JHC, allowing freedom of movement between fleets as required - with a natural bias of people to their home service. We already have significant numbers of AAC backfilling Puma, FAA backfilling AH, and RAF backfilling AAC and FAA QHI slots.
This would allow a more flexible manning structure, fitting in with ever changing manning priorities. (The incoming exodus from AAC when the last FRI time bar runs out in 2 years, for example).
Additionally, massive savings could be made by rationalising the number of headquarters, rather than triplicating many roles in what is now a small community.
If we hadn't had tri-service bickering, then Blackhawk & Seahawk may well have been a single platform solution to many of Wildcat \ Puma \ green Merlin's roles (UK company procurement aims aside), saving God knows how much in procurement, training, and giving us sensible economies of scale, rather than having a large number of small fleets.
How about going radical - post everyone, under whatever guise to JHC, allowing freedom of movement between fleets as required - with a natural bias of people to their home service. We already have significant numbers of AAC backfilling Puma, FAA backfilling AH, and RAF backfilling AAC and FAA QHI slots.
This would allow a more flexible manning structure, fitting in with ever changing manning priorities. (The incoming exodus from AAC when the last FRI time bar runs out in 2 years, for example).
Additionally, massive savings could be made by rationalising the number of headquarters, rather than triplicating many roles in what is now a small community.
If we hadn't had tri-service bickering, then Blackhawk & Seahawk may well have been a single platform solution to many of Wildcat \ Puma \ green Merlin's roles (UK company procurement aims aside), saving God knows how much in procurement, training, and giving us sensible economies of scale, rather than having a large number of small fleets.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have NEVER seen anyone transfer from the RAF to the Army
One was a rockape who went to a not-so secret campsite near the Welsh border. The other was a helicopter pilot who did something very similar.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let’s get really radical and put all RW into one service. Those that don’t like it can leave.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of my fellow JTs in RAFG did the same thing.. Why a rigger would ever wish to want to be Lewis Collins always had me scratching my head, but then I saw his bad taste in women and stopped doing so.
Not even CGS wants the Apache, but he does want the money that comes with having it. Once the Army doesn't have Wildcat, the argument for the AAC starts to dwindle. Admittedly the RAF will only really have one SH type if Puma does get chopped however, the Chinook Force will still be bigger than the AAC and CHF combined! Interesting to see talk of Puma being axed; given the lift of the aircraft post update and the speed with which it can be deployed globally (as demonstrated recently in the Caribbean), it offers a capability not found elsewhere in defence, and which is basically already paid for. I would be very surprised to see it go before its 2025 OSD.
My vote would be to ditch JHC (can't see many in JHC arguing against that bit!), let CHF go fully back to Fleet, AAC assets over to RAF and allow Land to concentrate on stuff on land.
My vote would be to ditch JHC (can't see many in JHC arguing against that bit!), let CHF go fully back to Fleet, AAC assets over to RAF and allow Land to concentrate on stuff on land.
TBM - you, and some others, clearly have no idea of the gulf that exists between the AAC and the RAF SH Force in terms of organisation, training. engineering and especially rearcrew.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In parliament yesterday Defence Sec refused to comment on the three options for cuts or on timescale for Defence Review but staed his priorities were:-
1 the defence of Europe
2. The permanent 4 boat deterrent
3. Building a successful Carrier based strike force
1 the defence of Europe
2. The permanent 4 boat deterrent
3. Building a successful Carrier based strike force
As things stand, that's not a bad set of priorities. The defending Europe bit highlights what will NOT change as a result of Brexit.
We have some difficult decisions ahead and we need to be realistic that more money is not coming our way. For the majority of the British public, the amount of GDP we currently allocate to Defence is generally considered sufficient. I see no public marches demanding we cut the NHS to pay for more Defence.
Our problems have come from committing to buy too much capability for the budget we have available. The 'conspiracy of optimism' that Bernard Gray reported on is alive and well in the MoD. If we were given another £10Bn a year, within a decade we would be faced with the same issues.
Until we break our habit of overspending, we are always going to suffer.
We have some difficult decisions ahead and we need to be realistic that more money is not coming our way. For the majority of the British public, the amount of GDP we currently allocate to Defence is generally considered sufficient. I see no public marches demanding we cut the NHS to pay for more Defence.
Our problems have come from committing to buy too much capability for the budget we have available. The 'conspiracy of optimism' that Bernard Gray reported on is alive and well in the MoD. If we were given another £10Bn a year, within a decade we would be faced with the same issues.
Until we break our habit of overspending, we are always going to suffer.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As things stand, that's not a bad set of priorities
1. The defence of the UK.
2. The permanent 4 boat deterrent.
3. The optimisation of homeland security.
Not saying I agree with either one...simply stating that there are some pretty successful nations on this planet that seem to survive and flourish with much simpler (less expensive) military hardware.
Of course most of them don't possess an IND, but p'haps we call all agree that is a slightly different dynamic.
110 years ago or so:
On 8th December 1888 Mr Edward Stanhope, Secretary Of State for War, minuted Adjutant-General Viscount Wolseley with what became known as the Stanhope memorandum. This was in reply to the very reasonable question “what is the army for?” In summary, and in order of priority, it was to:
1. Support the civil power in Great Britain
2. Garrison India
3. Garrison all fortresses and coaling stations at war footing
4. Be able to mobilise three Army Corps for home defence
5. Be able to send abroad two complete Corps (but this was “improbable”).
As a civilian I would like to see a tri-service answer to
"What are the armed services for?" and then the enabling three service's contributions. These answers should come from "what is/are the threats for the next 30 years". Get that wrong and we can be buggered.
On 8th December 1888 Mr Edward Stanhope, Secretary Of State for War, minuted Adjutant-General Viscount Wolseley with what became known as the Stanhope memorandum. This was in reply to the very reasonable question “what is the army for?” In summary, and in order of priority, it was to:
1. Support the civil power in Great Britain
2. Garrison India
3. Garrison all fortresses and coaling stations at war footing
4. Be able to mobilise three Army Corps for home defence
5. Be able to send abroad two complete Corps (but this was “improbable”).
As a civilian I would like to see a tri-service answer to
"What are the armed services for?" and then the enabling three service's contributions. These answers should come from "what is/are the threats for the next 30 years". Get that wrong and we can be buggered.
What he actually said was this :
Although the detail must wait until after the NSCR concludes, I can assure the House that as long as I am Defence Secretary we will develop and sustain the capabilities necessary to maintain continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence, a carrier force that can strike anywhere around the globe and the armed forces necessary to protect the north Atlantic and Europe; and we will continue to work with our NATO allies. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and I will be doing all we can to ensure that we have a sustainable budget, so that we can deliver the right capabilities for our armed forces.
Just to provide context on emphasis. He also added this :
I think that all Government Members recognise the importance of making sure that we maintain conventional forces, and the fact that we have to have a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent; but we cannot have one and not the other. We have to ensure that we have that ability so that, if we are in a point of conflict, there is deterrence at so very many levels. That is why having robust armed forces—the Army, Navy and Air Force—is so incredibly vital.
None of which guarantees any money, obvs.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,855
Received 2,809 Likes
on
1,196 Posts
Although the detail must wait until after the NSCR concludes, I can assure the House that as long as I am Defence Secretary we will develop and sustain the capabilities necessary to maintain continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence, a carrier force that can strike anywhere around the globe and the armed forces necessary to protect the north Atlantic and Europe; and we will continue to work with our NATO allies. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and I will be doing all we can to ensure that we have a sustainable budget, so that we can deliver the right capabilities for our armed forces.
The second part could be read as we will provide the budget and capabilities to the armed forces proportionate to the size we intend to cut them too.
Make defence of the UK the number one priority as opposed to the defence of Europe?
If that policy was adopted then prepare for HUGE cuts as there is no specific threat to the safety of the UK out there and none on the horizon.
I think the priorities as stated make sense in today's world.
If that policy was adopted then prepare for HUGE cuts as there is no specific threat to the safety of the UK out there and none on the horizon.
I think the priorities as stated make sense in today's world.
Nutloose,
He simply gave his top 3 priorities. It is not unreasonable to assume that he thinks the MOD should be capable of also doing other things and he specifically did not say that the ground forces were simply to protect Europe.
He simply gave his top 3 priorities. It is not unreasonable to assume that he thinks the MOD should be capable of also doing other things and he specifically did not say that the ground forces were simply to protect Europe.