Are we going to see the RAF reform 127 Sqn to get into this chaps good books?

Tom Tugendhat "After attending St Paul's School, London, he studied Theology at the University of Bristol."

A direct line to God might help, because the Tories will need a miracle to extradite themselves from this mess.

I think it is better that the SofS is not ex-military. HH's point is well-made and 2 of the services would always feel themselves to be on the back foot..

Any comparison with the US is invalid. Because UK ministers typically need to serve as MPs first, most of the UK ex-mil who have made it to ministerial office left the services as mid-rankers, largely tactical in experience and without the breadth of joint perspective of a 4* like Mattis (who can be appointed without needing to establish a political career). Also, each of the US services has its own minister and civil servants to fight its corner in any disagreements. By contrast, the UK MoD is effectively a single 'joint' ministry, so it is vital that its ministers are as objective as possible. Single-service 'baggage' is unlikely to be helpful in that regard.

All that said, there must have been a better candidate, surely?

However unlike many in Parliament he did work in the real world before becoming an MP.

There are always some willimg to mouth off anyone appointed to any post there. It is in the nature of the game played out.

I agree that appointing a former Army Lt Col would have been a disaster. Not sure the Generals would enjoy being ordered about by him either.

https://s1.postimg.org/72pn6vp6kf/Sc...t_14.51.56.png

The bad news - he knows nothing about Defence. The next few months are going to be hardwork. Then again, that would be no change you might say.

The good news - it's never a bad thing to have a boss who's close to the PM.

The second bit of bad news - we don't know how long the PM will be PM.

He will do well if he can write the hymn sheet and make everyone follow it. My expectation is, he will force a major review of Defence policy and it will mean cuts of things we don't need to do with expenditure pegged at 2%. At the same time, I think he will also get rid of the 1% cap, maybe next summer. :D

OAP

But surely launching a 'Major Defence Review' is the obvious first step on taking up office? This proves you are a "Person of Action", and establishes your credentials for the future.

Subsequently, the Government falls (63.8% probability) or the incumbent is re-shuffled by the incumbent PM (83.2 % prob).

* Percentages extracted from PoliticsForKids.com ;)

The cap is already history as far as policy is concerned, there's too much momentum now not to get rid of it.

But to say it's pay rises all round isn't a given. Fallon himself, at a recent Defence Town Hall I sat in on, said there is no cash for a rise above 1%. If it's 1%+ all round, then there need to be cuts elsewhere; more likely is 1%+ for certain areas and less for others. I don't see that changing regardless of who is running the place.

Thinking further, I did like the line he gave in a speech, paraphrasing "I don't believe in stick but you can get a lot done with a sharpened carrot".

Looks like he has a sense of humour.

He'll need one.

So will the currently-serving members of HM Forces, and the pensioners.

Don't deprecate or trivialise Theology as a degree subject. Perhaps if it were "rebranded" as "Wisdom" it would be more contemporary.

Melchy, my view is based on the political situation. Generally, there are few votes in Defence spending (until it gets too late!) and, at the present time, increasing spending on other domestic issues is becoming important to maintain enough popular support for the Tories. Therefore, I judge that Defence spending will take a hit in the near future. Spreadsheet Phil will bank on that (but not say) in his calculations for the Budget. The Defence cuts will have to be limited to keep to about 2% GNP. As far as the 1% Public pay limit, I see that falling to the wayside in stages.
Opposition to Defence spending cuts from the Service chiefs will be tempered by the (political) Defence review and, the hard fact that, if the VSOs don't like it, they would be dealing with far worse cuts if Corbyn and co get enough popular support. :oh: Just the way I see it. ;)

For centuries the imposition of superstition was branded as "wisdom", on pain of death preceded by ghastly torture for anyone who questioned the crappy dogma that was handed down from a pulpit.

We still fight religious wars militarily: currently an Abrahamic religion is in the cross-hairs --- not for the first time!

We "send a strong message" by immolating them, not at the stake but at the push of a button, with missiles which have biblical names such as Hellfire and Brimstone.

The Church of England has been described as the Tory party at prayer. This Minister of Defence has been appointed for his beliefs, not for his ministerial experience.

Gawd help us all!

Imagine if you will, a new broom sweeping clean.

He could cancel the F35 order and buy a less capable, but more suitable, and far cheaper aircraft.

How good would that be... imagine the MOD actually gearing up for this war and the next, instead of the one before last?

For anyone rushing to type a list of reasons why we need Typhoons and F35s to see off the Soviet Hordes, I refer you to my comments on the Nimrod while under threat, and all of those on here who said we couldn't do without LRMPA, Mil SAR all over the UK, our own tanker fleet etc. etc.

We are at war with nobody as much as we are at war with white van man, where the van is white, but maybe not the man.

Not only do the great unwashed not care about Russian Bombers 200 miles east of Aberdeen at 410 heading west, they really, really do care about a guy beheading passengers on the East Coast mainline trains.

I for one, think they are right to be more worried about the real threats.

Perhaps Nuclear Weapons are the answer to terrorists, perhaps not. They certainly seem to be the answer to raising the share price of the people selling them.

Why don't the Irish have nuclear attack subs and Typhoons and aircraft carriers? Why do the Swedish Navy not have nuclear subs, capable of melting rocks? Could it be that they have decided to spend their money on emptying the bins every week instead?

The new guy really has got a huge selection of expensive things that he could cut. Without causing the UK public any real harm.

Airpolice,

I'm not an expert on where HMG wants us to go next (expect the unexpected) but you don't just need F35 to go to war with Russia. Anything from Syria upwards would warrant F35 if you actually want some kind of freedom of mvr. In ten years time that kind of tech will be trickling to a lot of other places around the world and I'd rather have an F35 looking over my shoulder than a Gripen or souped up F15/18. (Be nice to have some Growlers along for the ride as well though, admittedly).

Buggah! You've done bust the code.

Yup. A dogfighter was a really useful tool when aerial dogfighting was a mode of warfare. Not any more, but it used to be.

Similarly, an ability to joust with lances on horseback was a really worthwhile technology to indulge, once upon a time. Not any more, but it used to be.

How useful is an F-35 against a nutter who drives a van along a crowded pavement?

What use would any of that style of equipment be if a Francoist government decided to walk across the runway in Gib and militarily take control of the place 'back' to the rest of Spain?

Can we rely on the F&CO to signal to Mod that such an invasion is forthcoming?

Will they do so in sufficient time to allow MoD to charter SS Canberra and Herald of Free Enterprise and a few other collections of ferrous oxide to go down there with a brass band and a coupla hundred squaddies to sort out the swarthies?

Is the gumment Chief Whip up to the task?

pba, it's sticking our nose into Syria that got people killed in London. People were already dying in Syria, "we" are not helping (us) there any more than "we" helped in Libya.

HM's next G might well have a better agenda, with more focus on protecting our own people.

Let the Russians assist Syria to do what they will to the region. The US will resolve it, if it becomes a real danger.

Guns and ammo?

Now you are stretching the plonker's budget.

Blaircraft carriers don't pay for themselves y'know. Then there's the berthing fees for the long black things to go alongside at King's Bay. And stuff.

You really can't have it all, y'know.

and to be blunt - why do we need Gib. if we're not going to fight wars in the Med & N Africa?

It's the fantasy promoted to the electorate that we always "punch above our weight". Why can't we simply punch at our weight? We're no longer the 19th century colossus that stood astride the world, painting it pink wherever we trod.
Dean Acheson's observation that "Great Britain has lost an Empire and has not yet found a role" is as true today as it was in 1962 when he said it.
As a starting point, it would be helpful if our Lords & Masters could decide what our weight should be. Now would be a good time to do it as we separate from European institutions and aspire to a different world role.