Times details proposed UK defence cut options
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Why are we STILL continuing with expeditionary warfare for one.
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.
FB
You did ask, and I write as an 80 year old patriot ex MoD scientist who has seen a lot and seen a lot of b*llocks in my time. None of what follows may be feasible or wise, just an opinion from the reasonably informed non-expert.
I can deal quickly with the old set:
Support the civil power in Great Britain is the only survivor, and should be capable of being taken as read.
Decide if we keep Falklands, Gibraltar, SBAs Cyprus etc IN THE LONG TERM and base RAF transport requirements on that, and no further.
Prioritise air defence UK and ground support NATO. RAF to concentrate on Chinook
Provide one all-arms division to support NATO; light forces para, marines to scale to support maintenance of Falklands etc. Army to maintain Apache.
Navy to scrap carriers, maintain 4 missile boats and 8 hunter killers, RAF to provide top cover when leaving/ joining. Navy to have mixed fleet frigates and smaller only.
Maximum effort on cyber warfare.
Bring back outsourced services such as maintenance, catering into MoD
Forget all the equality nonsense, it will happen by a natural osmosis process rather than PC straining.
I can deal quickly with the old set:
Support the civil power in Great Britain is the only survivor, and should be capable of being taken as read.
Decide if we keep Falklands, Gibraltar, SBAs Cyprus etc IN THE LONG TERM and base RAF transport requirements on that, and no further.
Prioritise air defence UK and ground support NATO. RAF to concentrate on Chinook
Provide one all-arms division to support NATO; light forces para, marines to scale to support maintenance of Falklands etc. Army to maintain Apache.
Navy to scrap carriers, maintain 4 missile boats and 8 hunter killers, RAF to provide top cover when leaving/ joining. Navy to have mixed fleet frigates and smaller only.
Maximum effort on cyber warfare.
Bring back outsourced services such as maintenance, catering into MoD
Forget all the equality nonsense, it will happen by a natural osmosis process rather than PC straining.
Well whilst we’re making our minds up what we should do, looks like we might get the chance to support the French in Africa:
Britain prepares to send military helicopters for French campaign against Islamists in Sahel
By all accounts I’ve heard Mali described as France’s Afghanistan, whilst the UN MINUSMA op is widely regarded as the most dangerous UN op currently running.
All those in JHC that think you’ve got summer leave, one pace forward. Odiham stand fast!
Britain prepares to send military helicopters for French campaign against Islamists in Sahel
By all accounts I’ve heard Mali described as France’s Afghanistan, whilst the UN MINUSMA op is widely regarded as the most dangerous UN op currently running.
All those in JHC that think you’ve got summer leave, one pace forward. Odiham stand fast!
TBN -
as I recall, it was a disaster for several years because the 'assumption' was that everyone would just move across. The Army ended up with a load of helicopters they couldn't fly or maintain and a lot of pi**ed-off people.
I think anyone considering messing with our current structure would do well to examine what went wrong there.
Well even Australia managed the change. The RAAF does not fly helos anymore. The Army and RAN do it very well these days...
I think anyone considering messing with our current structure would do well to examine what went wrong there.
The whole approach and the presented status quo from the interviewed mandarin is one of "we are fully prepared, fully capable, can take on anyone, are fully funded and can do anything".
It would seem that little is wrong. No wonder the UK Gov does what it does. 
OAP
Yes, he seems very happy to provide broad-brush answers with positive spin but won't commit to any specifics.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Yes, he seems very happy to provide broad-brush answers with positive spin but won't commit to any specifics.
So much for a Defence review to fit the real UK Defence needs.
OAP
This IS worth a read.
The whole approach and the presented status quo from the interviewed mandarin is one of "we are fully prepared, fully capable, can take on anyone, are fully funded and can do anything". It would seem that little is wrong. No wonder the UK Gov does what it does.
OAP
The whole approach and the presented status quo from the interviewed mandarin is one of "we are fully prepared, fully capable, can take on anyone, are fully funded and can do anything".
It would seem that little is wrong. No wonder the UK Gov does what it does. OAP
What could possibly go wrong etc.
Obviously, fairly knowledgeable and fleet of foot (and mouth!). Notwithstanding his nimble performance in that unclassified content interview, I get the impression his views were based largely on what he has been told will-be by very senior pollies and, I failed to see much evidence that he had formed views from any personal knowledge of Defence needs and capability. Indeed on p.10 of the doc he admitted lacking sufficient knowledge about Northern flank security.
Hmmm, all in all, I remain convinced that UK Defence is based more on party political needs, less on Defence needs.
OAP
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PrOOne,
You say that there is no specific threat to the UK. All well and good so far, but if you cast your mind back to ground lectures about security, the first point always made was "The biggest threat to security is the perception that no threat exists". This maxim has been borne out for every conflict we have been involved in. From the Falklands, Bosnia, Iraq, etc. we have been caught short on realities of providing military support. That capability is now so perilously close to ineffectiveness, with so many capability gaps, that the Government must seriously review our military capability OR withdraw from the commitments we have made to NATO, and other bilateral agreements. The proposed EU force is a toothless paper tiger and it is time to be realistic about POTENTIAL threats and prepare accordingly. Spend more, or promise less.
You say that there is no specific threat to the UK. All well and good so far, but if you cast your mind back to ground lectures about security, the first point always made was "The biggest threat to security is the perception that no threat exists". This maxim has been borne out for every conflict we have been involved in. From the Falklands, Bosnia, Iraq, etc. we have been caught short on realities of providing military support. That capability is now so perilously close to ineffectiveness, with so many capability gaps, that the Government must seriously review our military capability OR withdraw from the commitments we have made to NATO, and other bilateral agreements. The proposed EU force is a toothless paper tiger and it is time to be realistic about POTENTIAL threats and prepare accordingly. Spend more, or promise less.
Last edited by cynicalint; 17th Jan 2018 at 22:54.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,880
Received 2,825 Likes
on
1,205 Posts
Totally and utterly agree with the above.
Just look at previous conflicts in the last 30 years and ask have we the capability to do that again and the answer will probably be no. The Falklands for example is a prime interest to the UK because of the natural resources in its waters, could we fight another war for it...NO.
And the typical spiel you get about the new ship etc being 3 times more capable as its 3 predecessor's does not cut the mustard when you need it in three different places.
Just look at previous conflicts in the last 30 years and ask have we the capability to do that again and the answer will probably be no. The Falklands for example is a prime interest to the UK because of the natural resources in its waters, could we fight another war for it...NO.
And the typical spiel you get about the new ship etc being 3 times more capable as its 3 predecessor's does not cut the mustard when you need it in three different places.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FI has great resources of fish and looks as if it has some oil - not on the scale of the N Sea sbut yes, resources.
But no-way are they critical to the UK - we fought the war because the people were taken over by a military dictatorship and we were right to do so. I don't think there is any real chance of a repeat in the immediate future (say 5-10 years) but it doesn't cost a great deal to keep a presence there ( great for training) except maybe the River Class boats
And we build them to keep Scots yards open rather than for fighting anyone serious -also the Fi do make a contribution - in $$ which will go up when the oil flow starts
But no-way are they critical to the UK - we fought the war because the people were taken over by a military dictatorship and we were right to do so. I don't think there is any real chance of a repeat in the immediate future (say 5-10 years) but it doesn't cost a great deal to keep a presence there ( great for training) except maybe the River Class boats
And we build them to keep Scots yards open rather than for fighting anyone serious -also the Fi do make a contribution - in $$ which will go up when the oil flow starts
also the Fi do make a contribution - in $$ which will go up when the oil flow starts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,880
Received 2,825 Likes
on
1,205 Posts
Keep cutting the Services to the bone and then you have a toss up situation, can you afford to maintain that garrison and its protection or do you move your dwindling resources elsewhere where needed.
Like it or not, the Islands do fall under the protection of UK PLC and as such you need to maintain a credible force to ensure they do.