US General says British Army less than Par?!?!?!?
But was utterly unaffordable after decades of mis-steps, mismanagement and failure by the MoD.
Yes, a Bentley Bentayga is a fantastic choice for a local runabout but a sits unaffordable, then its not really in the running is it ?
Yes, a Bentley Bentayga is a fantastic choice for a local runabout but a sits unaffordable, then its not really in the running is it ?
The following users liked this post:
The planned mis-steps and mismanagement, and inevitable failure and the precise reasons, were identified and notified long before the MRA4 contract was let.
The same issues afflicted a sister programme, upon which MRA4 relied, but which was delivered ahead of time, under cost, and to a better spec.
What was the single differentiating factor? The latter programme completely ignored the directives of a 1, 2 and 4 Star. The 4 Star never did learn that when he was asked to sign approval to proceed to development, 5 production sets of avionics had already been delivered!
Its 2023 , Bad guys stille xist , ie Russia but at the same time they seem to be extremely incompetent .
Uk has an economy and infrastructure on its knees, due to our histroy we have well trained service personnel but always seem to lack the equipment that really need . Why Nimrods not P3s for example Why carriers when we can only hope to infleucne the N Sea , Eastern Atlantic and maybe a bit of the med , someone has already pointed out the tank/AFV catsstrophe
A PM with no wiggle room on money to spend has to amke a choice . More squaddies or more nurses ( ie Defence vs NHS) . A nuclear war is a lose lose and because of Europe geography if you attack Southern England you are also attaching France and vv so why not pool nuke resources with France. , Isnt one of our nuclear subs effectively knackered anyway so we cannot guarantee 24/7 response or attack -however so long as the bad guys dont know which days its down it doest actually matter.
Being out of the EU doesnt mean out of Europe. UK doesnt thave the resources or man power to do much l against any serious country with evil intent against UK and they cannot do much without mass nuclear fallout on France or as has been pointed out go 1500 Kms across Europe to even get to the channel , So why not an EU Army , how far a step away from NATO is that.. I am sure there are the usaul facile comments about lack of back bone in some countries but then again the Czechs Slovaks , Poles and Hungarians would probably be more committed than our troops in such circumstances as they are the front line
So the money has to go on the NHS as theyare the real and present danger .. Over simplification of course but how far away from that choice are we.
Uk has an economy and infrastructure on its knees, due to our histroy we have well trained service personnel but always seem to lack the equipment that really need . Why Nimrods not P3s for example Why carriers when we can only hope to infleucne the N Sea , Eastern Atlantic and maybe a bit of the med , someone has already pointed out the tank/AFV catsstrophe
A PM with no wiggle room on money to spend has to amke a choice . More squaddies or more nurses ( ie Defence vs NHS) . A nuclear war is a lose lose and because of Europe geography if you attack Southern England you are also attaching France and vv so why not pool nuke resources with France. , Isnt one of our nuclear subs effectively knackered anyway so we cannot guarantee 24/7 response or attack -however so long as the bad guys dont know which days its down it doest actually matter.
Being out of the EU doesnt mean out of Europe. UK doesnt thave the resources or man power to do much l against any serious country with evil intent against UK and they cannot do much without mass nuclear fallout on France or as has been pointed out go 1500 Kms across Europe to even get to the channel , So why not an EU Army , how far a step away from NATO is that.. I am sure there are the usaul facile comments about lack of back bone in some countries but then again the Czechs Slovaks , Poles and Hungarians would probably be more committed than our troops in such circumstances as they are the front line
So the money has to go on the NHS as theyare the real and present danger .. Over simplification of course but how far away from that choice are we.
Being invaded by or destroyed by a foreign power is a far worse outcome than waiting for or not receiving a hip replacement.
We have an aging population and ever more sophisticated and expensive treatments.
The demand for health services is insatiable and will never recede.
We could take the defense budget to zero and it still wouldn’t “fix” the NHS.
The defense budget didn’t cause the problems the NHS is facing and can’t solve them either.
You are minimizing a far more impactful risk to solve a less severe but more easily apparent risk that your approach still doesn’t solve anyway.
Last edited by Bbtengineer; 7th Feb 2023 at 02:48.
The following 2 users liked this post by Bbtengineer:
"Being invaded by or destroyed by a foreign power is a far worse outcome than waiting for or not receiving a hip replacement."
problem is that the first possibility is seen rightly as highly unlikely and not imminent - but my neighbours hip operation is needed NOW. So guess what he will vote for?
problem is that the first possibility is seen rightly as highly unlikely and not imminent - but my neighbours hip operation is needed NOW. So guess what he will vote for?
The following users liked this post:
"Being invaded by or destroyed by a foreign power is a far worse outcome than waiting for or not receiving a hip replacement."
problem is that the first possibility is seen rightly as highly unlikely and not imminent - but my neighbours hip operation is needed NOW. So guess what he will vote for?
problem is that the first possibility is seen rightly as highly unlikely and not imminent - but my neighbours hip operation is needed NOW. So guess what he will vote for?
That highly unlikely has to be purchased.
Last edited by Bbtengineer; 8th Feb 2023 at 01:07.
Hmm - I agree up to a point - the problem is that no UK politician is really interested in spending any money on anything that doesn't get them a vote in the next election.
There are no marches demanding more guns and less butter, only retired military types seem to write letters to the papers calling for increased arms
There are no marches demanding more guns and less butter, only retired military types seem to write letters to the papers calling for increased arms
Hmm - I agree up to a point - the problem is that no UK politician is really interested in spending any money on anything that doesn't get them a vote in the next election.
There are no marches demanding more guns and less butter, only retired military types seem to write letters to the papers calling for increased arms
There are no marches demanding more guns and less butter, only retired military types seem to write letters to the papers calling for increased arms
Still we’re sending billions to Ukraine.
All is not yet lost.
It's interesting that I haven't heard a single voice in my Uk acquaintances objecting to sending arms and aid to the Ukraine - even amongst those well left of centre.
Everyone knows who is to blame and that if Putin wins there'll be another war along, closer, in short order
Everyone knows who is to blame and that if Putin wins there'll be another war along, closer, in short order
The following users liked this post:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/o...ster-ft5srh67q
As Table Media, a German specialist news outlet, has revealed, Nato is so worried about Britain’s military overstretch that it has asked Germany to keep the rotating leadership of the alliance’s new spearhead force, the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), for a further year.
We must provide a 5,000-strong force, ready within two to five days. Crucially, these soldiers may not be committed to any other task. Britain habitually double-counts its military obligations, so that the same troops fulfil multiple, clashing duties. But Nato sees through this. It is shaming that our allies would prefer even the notoriously underpowered Germans to our own armed forces for this vital role.
The Ministry of Defence insists that Britain is ready to fulfil its commitment, though Nato has not denied making the request to Berlin. But all over our military machine, rivets are popping, while “the magical thinking is getting worse”, as Francis Tusa, a defence analyst, tells me.
This is most visible in the help we are pledging to Ukraine. The 14 Challenger tanks we are sending there are between a third and a half of our usable fleet. Most of the nominally 200-strong force of these giant killing machines are rusting in warehouses. We promised 30 AS-90 self-propelled artillery guns. Now it turns out we can send only eight, with another 16 at “various states of readiness” elsewhere. That will doubtless be of great comfort to the Ukrainians, who need them all right now.
Overstretch last year forced us to bring home half of our 2,000-strong tripwire force in Estonia. The troops still deployed there lack ammunition: our puny “war stocks” of shells are kept in Britain. Our training programme is in shreds.
Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, laments that the Americans no longer regard us as a first-tier fighting force. But this frantic lobbying for bigger budgets from him and his squabbling brass-hats misses the point. The really striking fact here is that while our army cannot (by Wallace’s admission) deploy a single combat-capable division, Poland can provide four. It is smaller and poorer than Britain but it focuses its efforts and spends its money more wisely. The same could be said of countries such as Australia. Its air force, though much smaller, is probably more combat-capable than the RAF.
As Edward Stringer, a former director of Strategic Command, argues, our approach has been like trying to create a medium-sized rhododendron by pruning a large one. You end up with a lot of roots and too little foliage. Instead, we need a rethink on the lines of those that followed the disastrous Crimean and Boer wars. It should centre on our biggest duty, the defence of Europe in Nato, rather than faraway missions where we will always be too small or too weak to make a difference.
In the short term, we must deal with munitions supplies with the vigour shown by Lord Beaverbrook, the newspaper tycoon whose no-holds-barred approach to aircraft production saved us in 1940. Russia’s invasion is now backed by a war economy. We are still wedded to the leisurely habits of peacetime.
Time is not on our side. Our allies are increasingly impatient with the mismatch between our grand words and skimpy capabilities. Moreover, while we dither and fantasise, Ukraine bleeds and shatters. Worse lies ahead as Russia continues its war of attrition. By the time western allies finally provide warplanes, for example, Ukraine will be gravely short of pilots to fly them.
Yet we should beware of magical thinking. A defeated Russia will be volatile and vengeful. And it may yet cudgel Ukraine into submission, gaining territorial and other trophies. Whatever the war’s outcome, Europe will be a dangerous place. And we are dangerously ill-defended.
Our magical thinking spells defence disaster
Unrealistic ideas and self-deception endanger security, anger allies and cost Ukrainian lives
Russia’s war in Ukraine has laid bare three decades of delusions. We ignored the threat from Russia and hollowed out our armed forces. We fought and lost two wars of choice, in Iraq and Afghanistan. We covered up our weaknesses with spin, stunts, slogans (“Global Britain”) and legerdemain. Now reality is biting. We face in effect a war of necessity: a direct military challenge from Russia to the European security order. But our enfeebled military cannot meet its obligations to defend us and our allies.As Table Media, a German specialist news outlet, has revealed, Nato is so worried about Britain’s military overstretch that it has asked Germany to keep the rotating leadership of the alliance’s new spearhead force, the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), for a further year.
We must provide a 5,000-strong force, ready within two to five days. Crucially, these soldiers may not be committed to any other task. Britain habitually double-counts its military obligations, so that the same troops fulfil multiple, clashing duties. But Nato sees through this. It is shaming that our allies would prefer even the notoriously underpowered Germans to our own armed forces for this vital role.
The Ministry of Defence insists that Britain is ready to fulfil its commitment, though Nato has not denied making the request to Berlin. But all over our military machine, rivets are popping, while “the magical thinking is getting worse”, as Francis Tusa, a defence analyst, tells me.
This is most visible in the help we are pledging to Ukraine. The 14 Challenger tanks we are sending there are between a third and a half of our usable fleet. Most of the nominally 200-strong force of these giant killing machines are rusting in warehouses. We promised 30 AS-90 self-propelled artillery guns. Now it turns out we can send only eight, with another 16 at “various states of readiness” elsewhere. That will doubtless be of great comfort to the Ukrainians, who need them all right now.
Overstretch last year forced us to bring home half of our 2,000-strong tripwire force in Estonia. The troops still deployed there lack ammunition: our puny “war stocks” of shells are kept in Britain. Our training programme is in shreds.
Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, laments that the Americans no longer regard us as a first-tier fighting force. But this frantic lobbying for bigger budgets from him and his squabbling brass-hats misses the point. The really striking fact here is that while our army cannot (by Wallace’s admission) deploy a single combat-capable division, Poland can provide four. It is smaller and poorer than Britain but it focuses its efforts and spends its money more wisely. The same could be said of countries such as Australia. Its air force, though much smaller, is probably more combat-capable than the RAF.
As Edward Stringer, a former director of Strategic Command, argues, our approach has been like trying to create a medium-sized rhododendron by pruning a large one. You end up with a lot of roots and too little foliage. Instead, we need a rethink on the lines of those that followed the disastrous Crimean and Boer wars. It should centre on our biggest duty, the defence of Europe in Nato, rather than faraway missions where we will always be too small or too weak to make a difference.
In the short term, we must deal with munitions supplies with the vigour shown by Lord Beaverbrook, the newspaper tycoon whose no-holds-barred approach to aircraft production saved us in 1940. Russia’s invasion is now backed by a war economy. We are still wedded to the leisurely habits of peacetime.
Time is not on our side. Our allies are increasingly impatient with the mismatch between our grand words and skimpy capabilities. Moreover, while we dither and fantasise, Ukraine bleeds and shatters. Worse lies ahead as Russia continues its war of attrition. By the time western allies finally provide warplanes, for example, Ukraine will be gravely short of pilots to fly them.
Yet we should beware of magical thinking. A defeated Russia will be volatile and vengeful. And it may yet cudgel Ukraine into submission, gaining territorial and other trophies. Whatever the war’s outcome, Europe will be a dangerous place. And we are dangerously ill-defended.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/o...ster-ft5srh67q
As Table Media, a German specialist news outlet, has revealed, Nato is so worried about Britain’s military overstretch that it has asked Germany to keep the rotating leadership of the alliance’s new spearhead force, the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), for a further year.
We must provide a 5,000-strong force, ready within two to five days. Crucially, these soldiers may not be committed to any other task. Britain habitually double-counts its military obligations, so that the same troops fulfil multiple, clashing duties. But Nato sees through this. It is shaming that our allies would prefer even the notoriously underpowered Germans to our own armed forces for this vital role.
The Ministry of Defence insists that Britain is ready to fulfil its commitment, though Nato has not denied making the request to Berlin. But all over our military machine, rivets are popping, while “the magical thinking is getting worse”, as Francis Tusa, a defence analyst, tells me.
This is most visible in the help we are pledging to Ukraine. The 14 Challenger tanks we are sending there are between a third and a half of our usable fleet. Most of the nominally 200-strong force of these giant killing machines are rusting in warehouses. We promised 30 AS-90 self-propelled artillery guns. Now it turns out we can send only eight, with another 16 at “various states of readiness” elsewhere. That will doubtless be of great comfort to the Ukrainians, who need them all right now.
Overstretch last year forced us to bring home half of our 2,000-strong tripwire force in Estonia. The troops still deployed there lack ammunition: our puny “war stocks” of shells are kept in Britain. Our training programme is in shreds.
Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, laments that the Americans no longer regard us as a first-tier fighting force. But this frantic lobbying for bigger budgets from him and his squabbling brass-hats misses the point. The really striking fact here is that while our army cannot (by Wallace’s admission) deploy a single combat-capable division, Poland can provide four. It is smaller and poorer than Britain but it focuses its efforts and spends its money more wisely. The same could be said of countries such as Australia. Its air force, though much smaller, is probably more combat-capable than the RAF.
As Edward Stringer, a former director of Strategic Command, argues, our approach has been like trying to create a medium-sized rhododendron by pruning a large one. You end up with a lot of roots and too little foliage. Instead, we need a rethink on the lines of those that followed the disastrous Crimean and Boer wars. It should centre on our biggest duty, the defence of Europe in Nato, rather than faraway missions where we will always be too small or too weak to make a difference.
In the short term, we must deal with munitions supplies with the vigour shown by Lord Beaverbrook, the newspaper tycoon whose no-holds-barred approach to aircraft production saved us in 1940. Russia’s invasion is now backed by a war economy. We are still wedded to the leisurely habits of peacetime.
Time is not on our side. Our allies are increasingly impatient with the mismatch between our grand words and skimpy capabilities. Moreover, while we dither and fantasise, Ukraine bleeds and shatters. Worse lies ahead as Russia continues its war of attrition. By the time western allies finally provide warplanes, for example, Ukraine will be gravely short of pilots to fly them.
Yet we should beware of magical thinking. A defeated Russia will be volatile and vengeful. And it may yet cudgel Ukraine into submission, gaining territorial and other trophies. Whatever the war’s outcome, Europe will be a dangerous place. And we are dangerously ill-defended.
Our magical thinking spells defence disaster
Unrealistic ideas and self-deception endanger security, anger allies and cost Ukrainian lives
Russia’s war in Ukraine has laid bare three decades of delusions. We ignored the threat from Russia and hollowed out our armed forces. We fought and lost two wars of choice, in Iraq and Afghanistan. We covered up our weaknesses with spin, stunts, slogans (“Global Britain”) and legerdemain. Now reality is biting. We face in effect a war of necessity: a direct military challenge from Russia to the European security order. But our enfeebled military cannot meet its obligations to defend us and our allies.As Table Media, a German specialist news outlet, has revealed, Nato is so worried about Britain’s military overstretch that it has asked Germany to keep the rotating leadership of the alliance’s new spearhead force, the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), for a further year.
We must provide a 5,000-strong force, ready within two to five days. Crucially, these soldiers may not be committed to any other task. Britain habitually double-counts its military obligations, so that the same troops fulfil multiple, clashing duties. But Nato sees through this. It is shaming that our allies would prefer even the notoriously underpowered Germans to our own armed forces for this vital role.
The Ministry of Defence insists that Britain is ready to fulfil its commitment, though Nato has not denied making the request to Berlin. But all over our military machine, rivets are popping, while “the magical thinking is getting worse”, as Francis Tusa, a defence analyst, tells me.
This is most visible in the help we are pledging to Ukraine. The 14 Challenger tanks we are sending there are between a third and a half of our usable fleet. Most of the nominally 200-strong force of these giant killing machines are rusting in warehouses. We promised 30 AS-90 self-propelled artillery guns. Now it turns out we can send only eight, with another 16 at “various states of readiness” elsewhere. That will doubtless be of great comfort to the Ukrainians, who need them all right now.
Overstretch last year forced us to bring home half of our 2,000-strong tripwire force in Estonia. The troops still deployed there lack ammunition: our puny “war stocks” of shells are kept in Britain. Our training programme is in shreds.
Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, laments that the Americans no longer regard us as a first-tier fighting force. But this frantic lobbying for bigger budgets from him and his squabbling brass-hats misses the point. The really striking fact here is that while our army cannot (by Wallace’s admission) deploy a single combat-capable division, Poland can provide four. It is smaller and poorer than Britain but it focuses its efforts and spends its money more wisely. The same could be said of countries such as Australia. Its air force, though much smaller, is probably more combat-capable than the RAF.
As Edward Stringer, a former director of Strategic Command, argues, our approach has been like trying to create a medium-sized rhododendron by pruning a large one. You end up with a lot of roots and too little foliage. Instead, we need a rethink on the lines of those that followed the disastrous Crimean and Boer wars. It should centre on our biggest duty, the defence of Europe in Nato, rather than faraway missions where we will always be too small or too weak to make a difference.
In the short term, we must deal with munitions supplies with the vigour shown by Lord Beaverbrook, the newspaper tycoon whose no-holds-barred approach to aircraft production saved us in 1940. Russia’s invasion is now backed by a war economy. We are still wedded to the leisurely habits of peacetime.
Time is not on our side. Our allies are increasingly impatient with the mismatch between our grand words and skimpy capabilities. Moreover, while we dither and fantasise, Ukraine bleeds and shatters. Worse lies ahead as Russia continues its war of attrition. By the time western allies finally provide warplanes, for example, Ukraine will be gravely short of pilots to fly them.
Yet we should beware of magical thinking. A defeated Russia will be volatile and vengeful. And it may yet cudgel Ukraine into submission, gaining territorial and other trophies. Whatever the war’s outcome, Europe will be a dangerous place. And we are dangerously ill-defended.
While I would not argue with the need to increase log stocks and enablers, the justifications and arguments in the piece represent shoddy logic.
Lets start with the assertion that NATO is so worried by the state of the UK that they have asked Germany to extend its lead of the VJTF - which it only assumed on 1st Jan this year. This assertion appears to be based solely on a German media article - there's no other source for it. Also the classic NATO has not denied / when did you stop beating your wife? line. How strange that they'd do that at the start of the rotation. That'll also be the German army that is smaller than the British Army as well, I assume? Strangely, that does not get a mention.
Francis Tusa is hardly a source of unvarnished truth either. I'm fairly sure that the 30 AS90 were always couched in terms of arriving depending on readiness.
Then we get the line "Ben Wallace laments that the Americans no longer regard us as a first-tier fighting force". I'm fairly sure SoS has never said any such thing. That is deliberate manipulation of a news report to portray something completely different.
Then we get the "Poles have four times the number of combat capable divisions than we do", dressed up as some form of better use of resources. Might that not be down to the Poles being a traditional land power, positioned right next to the threat, rather than some magical defence efficiency? They don't have a particularly large naval requirement either - a crucial difference.
It's only when you dig into Mr Lucas' background that the truth emerges. He's a european specialist and former LibDem candidate - could these two facts possibly have any bearing on his preference for concentrating on NATO?
This is all part of a concerted lobbying attempt by certain parties to recreate BAOR - or more precisely defer / cancel the planned restructure of the Army as part of the IR refresh.
At no point do any of them explain why the UK (or the US for that matter) should front up large land formations of troops in Eastern Europe, when European nations much closer to the threat - particularly Germany - appear unwilling to do so. It's not as if Ivan is showing particular competence in his ground operations is it? that's against an opposition with a fraction of the counter-air and air-to-ground capabilities that NATO would deploy in the first 5 minutes of any Russian push westwards.
There's a very real danger of learning precisely the wrong lessons from this conflict - and Lucas and his ilk are just the people to teach them....
The following 2 users liked this post by Not_a_boffin:
I agree up to a point - anyone invoking Beaverbrook needs a history lesson
The problem is this is in the centre of the Times - it's not some weird website in Texas. These are opinion setting articles - especially as elsewhere there are stories of the Treasury getting pretty sniffy about more money for the MoD.
It wouldn't be so bad if the overall news picture was positive but with problems with everything from Carriers to ACV's and from pilot training to horribly stretched infantry and supply metrics the Uk doesn't seem to be working here.
The problem is this is in the centre of the Times - it's not some weird website in Texas. These are opinion setting articles - especially as elsewhere there are stories of the Treasury getting pretty sniffy about more money for the MoD.
It wouldn't be so bad if the overall news picture was positive but with problems with everything from Carriers to ACV's and from pilot training to horribly stretched infantry and supply metrics the Uk doesn't seem to be working here.
I agree up to a point - anyone invoking Beaverbrook needs a history lesson
The problem is this is in the centre of the Times - it's not some weird website in Texas. These are opinion setting articles - especially as elsewhere there are stories of the Treasury getting pretty sniffy about more money for the MoD.
It wouldn't be so bad if the overall news picture was positive but with problems with everything from Carriers to ACV's and from pilot training to horribly stretched infantry and supply metrics the Uk doesn't seem to be working here.
The problem is this is in the centre of the Times - it's not some weird website in Texas. These are opinion setting articles - especially as elsewhere there are stories of the Treasury getting pretty sniffy about more money for the MoD.
It wouldn't be so bad if the overall news picture was positive but with problems with everything from Carriers to ACV's and from pilot training to horribly stretched infantry and supply metrics the Uk doesn't seem to be working here.
Last I looked, QNLZ was about to embark f/w and is bombing up in Scotland, PWLS is progressing well, Ajax has passed its latest trials. Pilot training is still an issue - although I have some sympathy for Wigston who was confronted by Tubster with an argument that went something along the lines of "I've talked to two people on 617 who waited a long time to get to an operational seat, you've told me an average duration which is different so you're a liar". Sadly Wigston was unable to call the pompous little tw@t a pompous little tw@t, or a gobsh1te or indeed offer him out for that matter.....Interestingly, it appears that the majority of QFI on 207 are dark blue, so the perennial cry doesn't seem to stand up (pre-emption).
As for horribly stretched infantry, I'm assuming you're not talking a bunch of Peter Crouch-alikes, so where exactly is the pressing demand for these infantry units (of which we seem to have 33 regular infantry battalions)?
It's almost as if there's a sustained lobbying campaign being conducted through the pages of a once august newspaper.......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,755
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
The Times has been blotting its copybook with some fairly blatant stretching of the truth recently - not just with defence but with some interestingly partisan political positioning as well.
A bit of blatent scaremongering no matter how factually incorrect may have a response and bring the public on side to urgently address some of the issues raised and that is never a bad thing.
It is far better to under sell our capability than to over sell it when one is looking for extra funding.
It may well be, but if it results in extra resources, equipment and manning being forthcoming to our military, is that a bad thing?
A bit of blatent scaremongering no matter how factually incorrect may have a response and bring the public on side to urgently address some of the issues raised and that is never a bad thing.
It is far better to under sell our capability than to over sell it when one is looking for extra funding.
A bit of blatent scaremongering no matter how factually incorrect may have a response and bring the public on side to urgently address some of the issues raised and that is never a bad thing.
It is far better to under sell our capability than to over sell it when one is looking for extra funding.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,755
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
The reason for the AS 90 donation is I believe the UK has woken up to the fact they are ineffectual range wise against the other stuff being fielded, hence a replacememnt is being looked at, either the Korean or French SPA
How on earth extra resources could be made available to the RAF for pilot training is frankly beyond me. Some 57 UK aerodromes where the RAF once flew have closed since I joined in 1968, for one thing. Where would you station additional training aeroplanes, let alone find enough instructors. Once upon a time there were quite a few pilots lurking in staff appointments or as UAS instructors, but not these days!
Just as an aside, in 1957 there were 11 RAF aerodromes in RAFG, with 32 squadrons of 464 jet fighters / bombers. By the time the wall came down, there were 4 RAFG aerodromes and 12 squadrons of 156 jet fighters / bombers. OK, the F-35B and Typhoon are hugely more capable than Venom FB4 or Meteor NF11, Harrier, Tornado or Phantom and we have nothing left in RAFG - but are a mere 9 UK squadrons really sufficient now?
Just as an aside, in 1957 there were 11 RAF aerodromes in RAFG, with 32 squadrons of 464 jet fighters / bombers. By the time the wall came down, there were 4 RAFG aerodromes and 12 squadrons of 156 jet fighters / bombers. OK, the F-35B and Typhoon are hugely more capable than Venom FB4 or Meteor NF11, Harrier, Tornado or Phantom and we have nothing left in RAFG - but are a mere 9 UK squadrons really sufficient now?
The following 2 users liked this post by BEagle:
"The Times has been blotting its copybook with some fairly blatant stretching of the truth recently - not just with defence but with some interestingly partisan political positioning as well."
Every newspaper reflects the wishes of its owners - ever read the Daily Mail (or the Morning Star)????
And trying to defend UK procurement isn't exactly easy - someone wrote today "the Ajax program is back on track" - which to me suggests they have a time machine and we're going to erase the 13 year delay in delivery.
Every newspaper reflects the wishes of its owners - ever read the Daily Mail (or the Morning Star)????
And trying to defend UK procurement isn't exactly easy - someone wrote today "the Ajax program is back on track" - which to me suggests they have a time machine and we're going to erase the 13 year delay in delivery.
QNLZ is not much better. In terms of 'bombing-up' it is doing so with the bare minimum of stocks (from a stockpile the resembles a puddle) that with the exception of some forward stocks, is almost entirely based at Kineton. A home they share with the vast majority of all RAF and Army ammunition stocks. Even with our depleted supplies and slow destruction of obsolete weapons, we have allowed DM 'eggs-in-one-basket' Kineton to become the largest ammunition dump in Western Europe.
Embarking fixed-wing is another way of saying that we are deploying some of our F-35B pilots, the entire cadre of which we could fit in a minibus. Bombing-up for war, or even capable of it, it is not. Wallace publicly points at our hollowed-out capability and calls it a strategic risk - he is not wrong.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Latest review rumour is that the PoW will be mothballed, available to replace QNLZ as and when she is programmed for a refit. Which would enable manpower and funds to be released for the frigate fleet…
Reference the 30 AS90s we’ve promised, we are actually only sending. 8 with the promise of more. The rest are in various states of disrepair with a lack spares such as engines and gearboxes. They hope to eventually send another 8-16, but don’t hold your breath. They’ll probably end up stripping them to keep the first. 8 in spares such as replacement barrels.
Reference the 30 AS90s we’ve promised, we are actually only sending. 8 with the promise of more. The rest are in various states of disrepair with a lack spares such as engines and gearboxes. They hope to eventually send another 8-16, but don’t hold your breath. They’ll probably end up stripping them to keep the first. 8 in spares such as replacement barrels.