Cut Navy and RAF, Boost Army

Another ex Army General wants cuts to the Navy and RAF but wants money pumped into Land Forces.

Linky Link Link

Why are these people so short sighted and only care about their own service, and why don't the ex-RAF Air Ranks get on here and speak up for us.

 

[Shugster]

LOL, you really are a tool. When did I say that? But I ask you this, how many countries out there could offer us a proper conventional Air War?

Not many and those that can, if we get into a scrap with them, then we are proper fcuked. Like I said, apart from the FIs, I can't see us getting into any scraps where the USAF won't be.

And if you want a real deterrent, then we have our RN nuclear deterrent.

We have a brilliant ISTAR capability and we will always need to provide CAS. However, we do need more Helos and proper AT (not tristars that are on their last legs). But do we need to invest in fighter ac when the USAF will provide our air superiority?

I would NOT like to be in the position of having to call on Uncle Sam for help. They only helped out in WW2 AFTER Pearl Harbour.

This special relationship is pretty thin and one way.

 

[smokeyreid]

Agreed with helos and AT but helos are now being addressed and AT is in the pipeline. The USAF are fantastic to stick up for us when it suits them... what happens when it doesn't suit them?

and the Russians arn't the only power thats growing at a ridiculous rate, look at India, China, growing faster than any other air force...

And for the RN Nuclear deterent, yeah that works if we have an ability to retaliate, can't retaliate if the russians came down with planes and dropped nukes on us first, who's gonna stop them if there is no air defence?

 

[MontyPlumbs]

LOL, you really are a tool. When did I say that? I assume you thought the above post was directed at you? Don't to$$ off your ego just yet, I wasn't referring specifically to you, rather the homogenous 'mass' of idiots telling the RAF what it should be flying without thinking it through.

But I ask you this, how many countries out there could offer us a proper conventional Air War?

China, Russia, Pakistan, Argentina, France (I live in hope! DT_Xtremez_14 to name a few!

Not many and those that can, if we get into a scrap with them, then we are proper fcuked. Possibly, but at least we would be able to fight back - you can't fit 'winders to a Chinook!!

Like I said, apart from the FIs, I can't see us getting into any scraps where the USAF won't be. - I haven't got a crystal ball for future conflicts, have you got an NSN for yours?

And if you want a real deterrent, then we have our RN nuclear deterrent. - Which the Pongo morons are also trying to remove!

We have a brilliant ISTAR capability and we will always need to provide CAS. However, we do need more Helos and proper AT (not tristars that are on their last legs). - Can't argue with this, we need more AT and helos for sure, but not at the expense of everything else

But do we need to invest in fighter ac when the USAF will provide our air superiority? A lions share of the cash has already been spent on Typhoon, this aircraft has been in development for over two decades!!!

 

[Talk Wrench]

That's my whole point. I asked the question when was the last time we fought a typical Air Battle and the answer was 1982. So, considering that was over 25 yrs ago, do we need to invest in small pointy fast ac or some decent AT and more helos?

No, what you are saying is along the lines of the thinking of Army types.

It cannot be doubted that the British military as whole is now more deployable. It stands to reason that more helicopters and AT is needed. I agree wholeheartedly.

BUT

We need to invest in "Fast Pointy things" because without them, a lot of what the Army needs to achieve can't happen without the support from ROYAL AIR FORCE fast jet assets.

This is why the Army hates the ROYAL AIR FORCE so much, because the Army is a culturally ingrained land force. They don't understand the need for air superiority, CAP, etc etc because it is not in their psyche.

The reverse can be said for the serving RAF to balance things out. Why do the RAF need to run ten miles with a gun and a massive backpack when they are geared up to throw fast pointy things at the enemy, in support of the army? They don't and the psyche has developed thus.

When air assets are removed in the short term, the Army will inevitably gain financially because of the book balancing exercise. In the long term, the army will suffer because of lack of support.

Boots on the ground will always be needed, and in great numbers. However with today's and tomorrow's enemy remaining unpredictable and indeterminate, selling todays silver would be a massive wrong in the making.

TW

 

[R_Squared]

Sir Stephen Dalton has been defending the role of the RAF.

Defence cuts looming

He cautioned against taking the current conflict in Afghanistan as Britain's only or main template for the forces it needs for the future.
"Even if we are faced with conflicts that are similar in character to Afghanistan in the future... we cannot assume that there will be the political or popular appetite to fight them in the same way again.
"We need to think very carefully whether our Afghanistan era force structure is a model for the future. Do we want or need to put all our eggs in that particular basket?"

The likelihood of us fighting the same type of conflict in the next 20-30 years is not guaranteed. 30 years ago we were still butting heads with the Russians.
Memories about this sort of thing, especially amongst our army brethren, are short and confused.

 

[CC]

Shugster, I agree but you can't deny that any big fight will always include the USAF. When was the last time a UK ac shot down an enemy ac?

These days, air superiority is provided by the USAF. As for the FIs, god forbid should the Argies invade again. With a very depleted Navy, how are we going to get our fantastic small pointy a/c down there?

 

[Realist78]

Short sighted thinking from the tw@t that can't even pronounce his own name! We only have about 12 FJ assets at the front? So what about the OCU that trains the guys, the Sqns that aren't in theatre, training for the job etc? It's only the lack of funding that spawns this in-house fighting.

 

[smokeyreid]

Everyone that has posted on here is right in alot of ways, however what it comes down to is as armed forces...... what were being asked to cover at home and in Afghanistan is to much for what we have left in assets, if the government want us to keep up this commitment from every angle then the Government must find the billions to pay for it!!!!

 

[MontyPlumbs]

Short sighted thinking from the tw@t that can't even pronounce his own name! We only have about 12 FJ assets at the front? So what about the OCU that trains the guys, the Sqns that aren't in theatre, training for the job etc? It's only the lack of funding that spawns this in-house fighting.

He might be an ex General, but he's still a knuckle dragging Pongo! Sandhurst just teaches them to use a knife and fork! Don't expect them to show any intelligence or foresight!!

 

[R_Squared]

..... Like I said, apart from the FIs, I can't see us getting into any scraps where the USAF won't be.

And if you want a real deterrent, then we have our RN nuclear deterrent.....

I'm really surprised at your lack of any tactical knowledge whatsoever, are you sure you are in the RAF?

You are seriously suggesting that we rely on a foreign power for our air defence, and if that doesn't work we use nukes?

Clearly you can't be serious, because that is a huge pile of bollox.

 

[Shugster]

Shugster, I agree but you can't deny that any big fight will always include the USAF. When was the last time a UK ac shot down an enemy ac?

These days, air superiority is provided by the USAF. As for the FIs, god forbid should the Argies invade again. With a very depleted Navy, how are we going to get our fantastic small pointy a/c down there?

Only if it's in their interests, not ours. If, (God forbid), we stick our nose in Irans business they'll be straight in there.

If the UN, (Would never happen), setup a no fly zone over palestine do you think they'd be so keen then?

No one gets in to a fight unless there's something in it for them.

 

[Talk Wrench]

I'm really surprised at your lack of any tactical knowledge whatsoever, are you sure you are in the RAF?

That's why I've referred to Army thinking with my replies. Because I reckon that "the Chf Clk" is probably a chief clerk in the Army which dictates that he's a WO2 with lesser responsiblity and authority than one of our SAC's DT_Xtremez_14:


TW

 

[CC]

I'm really surprised at your lack of any tactical knowledge whatsoever, are you sure you are in the RAF?

You are seriously suggesting that we rely on a foreign power for our air defence, and if that doesn't work we use nukes?

Clearly you can't be serious, because that is a huge pile of bollox.

LOL, let's not let your stupidness get in the way of a decent chat.

When did I say we should rely on the USAF to provide our UK AD???

We need better AT and more helos, simple, and if we need to lose some fighters then so be it. Apart from the FIs, when can you see us at war without the USAF being there?

I have to applaud everyone's loyalty to the RAF in this post, but seriously you need to wake up and smell the coffee. You talk about tactical but strategically, our days are numbered.

 

[CC]

That's why I've referred to Army thinking with my replies. Because I reckon that "the Chf Clk" is probably a chief clerk in the Army which dictates that he's a WO2 with lesser responsiblity and authority than one of our SAC's DT_Xtremez_14:


TW

Brilliant mate...just brilliant DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[Realist78]

He might be an ex General, but he's still a knuckle dragging Pongo! Sandhurst just teaches them to use a knife and fork! Don't expect them to show any intelligence or foresight!!

I forgot to put thick before tw@t!

 

[R_Squared]

...... when can you see us at war without the USAF being there?.....

Could anyone see where we are today 10 years ago? Afghanistan wasn't even on the radar.

To strip our assets, and replace them, just because it isn't immediately apparent who we will be tangled up with next is just plain ridiculous, and dangerous.

I respect the Army for their committment, dedication and sacrifices that they are making every day. At the moment they are the arm of the forces working their shreddies off to get the job done, more so than some of us, but that does NOT mean that they should dictate defence policy or long term strategy.

Your type of short sighted vision could end up driving what's left of the RAF into the arms of the Generals, and then the UK could end up in real trouble in 10 years time.

I think it is you, and those who think like you who should wake up and smell the coffee, the rest of us have a better grasp of the vageries of world politics.

 

[Realist78]

That's why I've referred to Army thinking with my replies. Because I reckon that "the Chf Clk" is probably a chief clerk in the Army which dictates that he's a WO2 with lesser responsiblity and authority than one of our SAC's DT_Xtremez_14:


TW

Off TopicThat's why I think a Flt Lt is comparable to a semi competent SAC, the clues in the title 'Junior Officer'!

 

[MontyPlumbs]

Could anyone see where we are today 10 years ago? Afghanistan wasn't even on the radar.

To strip our assets, and replace them, just because it isn't immediately apparent who we will be tangled up with next is just plain ridiculous, and dangerous.

I respect the Army for their committment, dedication and sacrifices that they are making every day. At the moment they are the arm of the forces working their shreddies off to get the job done, more so than some of us, but that does NOT mean that they should dictate defence policy or long term strategy.

Your type of short sighted vision could end up driving what's left of the RAF into the arms of the Generals, and then the UK could end up in real trouble in 10 years time.

I think it is you, and those who think like you who should wake up and smell the coffee, the rest of us have a better grasp of the vageries of world politics.

Spot on mate. The last time I can think of such dangerous military naivety was the 1957 defence review and the famous Mr Sandys.

I just hope that these opinions remain just that...opinion.

 

[CC]

Could anyone see where we are today 10 years ago? Afghanistan wasn't even on the radar.

To strip our assets, and replace them, just because it isn't immediately apparent who we will be tangled up with next is just plain ridiculous, and dangerous.

I respect the Army for their committment, dedication and sacrifices that they are making every day. At the moment they are the arm of the forces working their shreddies off to get the job done, more so than some of us, but that does NOT mean that they should dictate defence policy or long term strategy.

Your type of short sighted vision could end up driving what's left of the RAF into the arms of the Generals, and then the UK could end up in real trouble in 10 years time.

I think it is you, and those who think like you who should wake up and smell the coffee, the rest of us have a better grasp of the vageries of world politics.

Since when did World Politics have a major impact on HM forces expenditure?

We are run by the Treasury, simple as. The country is broke, simple as. I don't condone what this Army blokey has said but I'm being very realistic here, change is coming and you either except it or die.

Nature's law of survival of the fittest isn't quite correct. The one that can adapt to change will survive. My god, I bet you didn't sleep for weeks when we started pulling out of Germany.....I could just imagine it, "Oh my god, what are we gonna do when the Russians invade" well I'm still waiting for them to invade.

No doubt if you had your way, we would still have over 100,000 personnel in the RAF and dozens of front line Sqns. The problem is, that is never gonna happen. We are in for a further 25% cut in manpower so whilst you can spout off with, "the rest of us have a better grasp of the vageries of world politics", you need to be realistic and either accept change and adapt or, as I suspect what you are, be a dinosaur and die out.

Your choice.

 

[True Blue Jack]

you need to be realistic and either accept change and adapt or, as I suspect what you are, be a dinosaur and die out.

Your choice.

We had a similar choice a few years ago. The world was changing faster than a stripper with 6 stag nights to do. Everyone said the UK should just accept the new world order because we weren't strong enough to resist. The year was 1940.

We all know the reality of what is likely to happen following the impending SDR. That doesn't make it right.

It is highly likely that any future fighting war will involve us participating as a coalition partner. But there is no treaty which forces the US or any other ally to fight on our behalf so in the interests of Defence Diplomacy we MUST remain capable of unilateral action.