MoD slammed on troop over-stretch
 

A most interesting report from the Commons Defence select committe......

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/2004...e39bd56cf2.htm

Bruce George is right. This is nothing to do with Defence needs and it isn't sensible. Its just about taking money out defence so it can be squandered elsewhere.

I tried to book a doctors appointment today, but was told I would have to wait 3 weeks. Why? Asylum seekers.

But Mr Hoon told us there wasn't any overstretch. I'm puzzled.

As to why he still has a job. :confused:

Navaleye (blinkered?)

How do you equate a 1% increase in the Defence budget, £2billion extra last year plus £600m for Iraq contingincies with "taking money out of defence"?


I booked to see my Dr yesterday at 9, saw him today at 11.


Pesky Asylum seekers eh? Responsible for all our ills and woes, do you know the % of potential Asylum seekers who are fully trained Dr's? I think you'd be quite surprised!

pr00ne - is your real name Hoon? Or possibly Blair??

Pr00ne,

You'd better get a visit to the optician organised as well because you clearly cannot see what is happening around you.

Do you live in the Orkneys or Shetland or maybe even the FI?

Proone,

I suspect that we share some common ground. Like you I'm disquieted when the redneck tendency start rattling off words like 'liberal' in a derogatory way, and I worry when people use the coded language ('asylum seekers', 'Tony Martin') which is so often a cover for the worst kind of ignorant knee-jerk far right attitudes.

But unlike you, I don't accept that grinning Tony is any better (or much worse) than the shockingly awful Thatcherite and post Thatcher Conservatives or the ineffectual liberal democrats. I think that we're currently very badly served by our politicians and face a very poor range of choices. And I fear that that's as true in health and education as it is in defence.

I do think that Labour's defence reviews so far have been better than I'd have dared hope, but expect the next one to have much more serious effects. There may or may not be a real-terms rise (these politicos have become so adept at double-counting money that it will take years to figure it out) in cash terms, but there is no doubt that there will be cuts to present force structure and in service equipment, and that these cuts will be imposed to safeguard funding on a number of high profile future programmes (Astute, Nimrod 4, CVF, Typhoon).

And much of the blame must go to the Government, who have failed to halt the delays and cost increases in these massively expensive, sometimes uncompetitively procured and often wasteful programmes, and who have failed to offer adequate oversight, direction or management.

Because of these programmes, money is undeniably being taken away from our current defence budget, largely to further 'featherbed' particular contractors and their shareholders.

Part of the answer must be to squander less of the defence budget, as well as to fight the diversion of more of it to 'squander' elsewhere.

Navaleye, (blind AND blinkered)

I live between London and Oxford, I know exactly what is happening around me, I just happen to have a sense of perspective and refuse to accept the nonsensical meanderings of the Daily Mail on issues such as Asylum.

Jackonicko,

Agree on the redneck issue BUT, please do not think that I have any time for our political masters, of whatever persuasion. I just get very rattled when simple prejudice as shown by the Daily Mail and the likes of Navaleye, get in the way of decent rational debate. Yes, there is an issue with the current size and shape of our armed forces, I just do not accept that that is purely a political affair, the current crop of military leaders are just as much to blame.

I also get frustrated when people resort to misinformation and talk about Defence Cuts when there is no such thing happening, that doesen't mean that I agree with what Hoon and Blair are doing, just as I deplored how Thatcher and her crowd treated the military.

I joined the RAF in the late 60's and left in the very early 80's. Many of my friends are still in as very senior officers and a lot of what I hear from them I cannot repeat as it was told me in confidence and after all is only hearsay.

prOOne:rolleyes:

"I also get frustrated when people resort to misinformation and talk about Defence Cuts when there is no such thing happening"

According to CASWO, and if he don't know noone does, watch out on the 12th, if the report is announced that day, for a quote "spectacular" unqote.........meaning stand by to take it up the tail pipe big style:sad:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

ABIW,

Fine, but will this be a cut in Defence Expenditure or a readjustment in force structures to equip the forces for a new and quite different future?

The Defence White Paper in Feb announced reductions in the numbers of fast jets required, the number of escort vessels required and a realignment in the Heavy/Light mix of the Army.

So no one can act all shocked and feign surprise if an announcement is made that cuts fast jet numbers and squadrons, reduces the number of frigates and destroyers in the RN and takes out a % of heavy armour and artillery.

1974/5, now that was a REAL Defence cut!


Not saying that I agree with or support any of this BTW.

PrOOne, I'm just a simple sailor, but from where I sit a reduction in assets in just about every area, manpower, ships, planes, soldiers, tanks etc = defence cut.

My advice regarding your eyesight relates to this not asylum seekers.

Bruce George seems to think so as well:

George warned that cutting the number of troops, ships or aircraft is "not sensible".

A real and meaningful "readjustment in force structures to equip the forces for a new and quite different future" would mean increases in FJ, helo. tanker force numbers to allow multiple and/or sustained simultaneous deployments without overstretch and without reliance on what may be temporary coalition partners. It would require Britain to have all of the required clubs in its golf bag, so you'd keep SHar and carriers and fund SEAD and recce. It would require greater investment in 'home defence', QRA, etc. It would be much more expensive than merely configuring your forces for Cold War requirements, though you might be able to shed some heavy armour, SSBNs, etc.

Therefore if Labour describe force reductions as "a readjustment in force structures to equip the forces for a new and quite different future" then they're being disingenuous tossers.

Just for a change.

I am slightly concerned that the cut in full-time numbers may lead to a situation similar to what the US forces are experiencing ,where large swathes of those who thought they had left are having call-up papers dropped through their letter box. I am due to leave soon and would don my kit again in a national crisis, as that is what RFA 96 is geared towards. However, if reservists are recalled as a temporary source of cheap labour to overcome cost-driven manning shortfalls then any certain envelopes coming through my door will be redirected straight into the bin, perhaps after immolation!

I understand that Gordon Brown is to announce the spending review outcome on the 12th, followed by the Defence Secretary announcing the outcome of the workstrand activity on the 16th. Farnborough should be fun, no doubt there will be much mutterings in dark corners..............

As for cuts, well, from what I can see there are some definite and very real cuts being made in certain areas, particularly in the procurement of some equipments. Programmes will be cut back, delayed or axed, of that I am absolutely certain. I am also certain that there will be basing cuts as well, and that it seems highly probable that manpower will be reduced by a fair margin. I predict that the RAF will suffer most with manpower cuts.

pr00ne, if I'm completely and utterly wrong on this, please feel free to come back on here and tell me so. .....................

Jacko

Crikey - I can't find anything in what you just wrote that I disagree with. I glad you said "some" heavy armour could be shed and not all, as some have proposed......

Many infantry units are equipped with Warrior Infantry Fighting vehicles. These protect the troops until they have to demount for the assault. They also provide fire support with the 30mm cannon that they are fitted with.

Tanks, whilst perhaps not needed in the numbers they used to be (mind you we deployed 160 or so Challengers in Gulf War 1, how many did we deploy last year?) were/are attached to Warrior equipped units to protect them from Iraqi armour.

Cuts.....
 

...there seems to be a lot of unease regarding cuts, and a sense of incredulity too...... was there not a tacit acknowledgement after the early 90's cuts that they went too far?
It's fairly common knowledge that the manpower we have NOW is barely enough, and overstretch is commonplace; BUT: what our lords and masters fail to comprehend is the PERSONAL side of such things.......quality of life etc.
If you p*ss enough people around, they will almost certainly vote with their feet.....loyalty is very definately a 2-way street, although at times, in fact most of the time, it is hard to appreciate that comment.......

Once your trained and loyal manpower has gone, it will take years to recover the situation, if at all.

Hands up all those people counting the days till year 22 or age 38..................

Not me ...........in to 55 followed by pension and retirement:ok:

However extra effort for the next 8 years............not feckin likely:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Look I don't know what you are all getting worked up about!!

Is it not a fact that after every war/crisis/operation since the Falkands, the Services have had large cuts in defence spending?

So why should this time be any different??

Though I am glad I beat the rush!!

:ok: