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.

 

[R_Squared]

If we let current conflicts shape our view of how the Armed forces should be set up, we will end up with a horde of anti IED measures, drones, helicopters and Mastiffs, and fcuk all else.

This will set us up perfectly to fight in land locked small scale conflicts against insurgents, and ONLY that.

The budget may be tight, but that doesn't mean we should let our focus become too narrow, otherwise we will be knackered when we have to deal with the next threat.

As it happens, the build up of forces for the Cold War did the job, we won, and we didn't even need to fire a shot. Do you think that if we had not set ourselves up as we had that the Russians would have happily sat exactly where they were?
If they had of moved do you really think the Yanks would have come to our rescue? You may need to have a re-read of what actually has been happening over the last 200 years or so.

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

This sentence alone shows that you don't really have a clue what you are talking about. Every action we have been involved in has been dictated by world politics, the Treasury then follows that dictate.

 

[Reformed Scribbly]

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

Which could never be used, as it would be politically unthinkable. All that's used for is to permit the UK to punch well above its weight. Time we stopped trying to be a world power, it's earning us few thanks.

However, if we strip our assets beyond the bone and lose major capabilities of self defence, i.e. UK ASACS, then in the event of an attack on the UK, the politicians may have to resort to threatening the use of the deterrent, because rapier just won't cut it. If they bottle it, then the UK is screwed, if not and they use it, then the world is screwed.

Nice choice.

 

[T93]

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.

********

Gentlemen,

Fascinating topic. It does make you wonder when logic is (apparently) not applied regarding assets required for the present/future.

It does not take much to understand that we need to provide for the present and invest for the future, be it defence/health/welfare etc

Off topic: TBJ...I like the above.

 

[CC]

If we let current conflicts shape our view of how the Armed forces should be set up, we will end up with a horde of anti IED measures, drones, helicopters and Mastiffs, and fcuk all else.

This will set us up perfectly to fight in land locked small scale conflicts against insurgents, and ONLY that.

The budget may be tight, but that doesn't mean we should let our focus become too narrow, otherwise we will be knackered when we have to deal with the next threat.

As it happens, the build up of forces for the Cold War did the job, we won, and we didn't even need to fire a shot. Do you think that if we had not set ourselves up as we had that the Russians would have happily sat exactly where they were?
If they had of moved do you really think the Yanks would have come to our rescue? You may need to have a re-read of what actually has been happening over the last 200 years or so.

This sentence alone shows that you don't really have a clue what you are talking about. Every action we have been involved in has been dictated by world politics, the Treasury then follows that dictate.

Yeah right, so when the Army and Air Force were asking for more eqpt, better vehicles for Afghan and more helos, the Chancellor said, "Of course, how much would you like?". I think you'll find he said, "On yer bike".

The thing is, I am not condoning any reduction in our budget and I am not saying we need to hand over large parts of ours to the Army but the analysts are saying now, will we ever be involved in a conventional war again?

I don't know the answer to that but all they can do is look back at recent history and make a decision.

The concern is we nearly always get that decision wrong, look at the 1930s. We reduced our Armed Forces and Hitler kicked off. In the late 70s, we left our Naval force rot and the Argies took advantage.

I'd rather there was no reducation in our budget but that is simply not going to happen.

 

[sumps]

...but the analysts are saying now, will we ever be involved in a conventional war again?

Define conventional war! As technology moves on so mind sets and attitudes will allow change the way we deploy an use our personnel its only the law courts that will try to reign in the actions of the heads of states, (how effective will the Chilcot inquiry or the ICHR in the Hague be?)

AND who are the analysts working for i.e who is funding them? (The treasury, the army…just a guess!)

I don't know the answer to that but all they can do is look back at recent history and make a decision.

The concern is we nearly always get that decision wrong, look at the 1930s. We reduced our Armed Forces and Hitler kicked off. In the late 70s, we left our Naval force rot and the Argies took advantage..

Lessons learnt inevitably become problems identified. We (the Armed Forces) are an expensive luxury. With looming elections, a continuing down turn in the economy and popular opinion bent to the direction the media wants it to go next these sound bites from old generals serve to undermine the Armed Forces as a whole. This then gives the impression of infighting and a lack of cooperation at a time when all three services are struggling to maintain their position given the times we are in

I find it quite disturbing that there is a continuous trickle of army officers jumping on the same bend wagon and getting themselves into the press about two or three times a year, without someone from the opposing services or the MoD either telling them they have a sound argument or to back down. All three services a inextricably linked and as has been said in earlier posts we have to plan an buy for the future and not just the current situation.

If the MoD were to run with the philosophy of only buying equipment needed for the current theatre of operation then come the next theatre (and inevitably there will be others) we would be right back to the same old argument the occurred a the beginning of all conflicts involving the British Armed Forces from WW1 to Afghanistan operations i.e. not enough of the correct equipment at the onset of a deployment.

 

[Stevienics]

I think it is quite dangerous to think of the services, any of them, in isolation from the people they are supposed to defend. It's not like the Premier League, where all you feel is a little ****ed off on sunday morning if your team loses. In this game it's all about the wellbeing of the supporters.

What I am saying here is that whatever you operate, and whoever does it, must be a function of the demands placed or expected to be placed in order to meet the needs of national security - and not one iota more. You can lose sight of this particular forest, when "amongst the trees", where one can become naturally professioanally enamoured with the means of prosecuting security, rather than the desired ends.

Bottom line - the present job demands the military spending priority and with this budget, all the means. There is little or no slack for strategic considerations or "wish lists" - the majority of the voting public just won't wear it.

 

[CC]

Define conventional war! As technology moves on so mind sets and attitudes will allow change the way we deploy an use our personnel its only the law courts that will try to reign in the actions of the heads of states, (how effective will the Chilcot inquiry or the ICHR in the Hague be?)

AND who are the analysts working for i.e who is funding them? (The treasury, the army…just a guess!)



Lessons learnt inevitably become problems identified. We (the Armed Forces) are an expensive luxury. With looming elections, a continuing down turn in the economy and popular opinion bent to the direction the media wants it to go next these sound bites from old generals serve to undermine the Armed Forces as a whole. This then gives the impression of infighting and a lack of cooperation at a time when all three services are struggling to maintain their position given the times we are in

I find it quite disturbing that there is a continuous trickle of army officers jumping on the same bend wagon and getting themselves into the press about two or three times a year, without someone from the opposing services or the MoD either telling them they have a sound argument or to back down. All three services a inextricably linked and as has been said in earlier posts we have to plan an buy for the future and not just the current situation.

If the MoD were to run with the philosophy of only buying equipment needed for the current theatre of operation then come the next theatre (and inevitably there will be others) we would be right back to the same old argument the occurred a the beginning of all conflicts involving the British Armed Forces from WW1 to Afghanistan operations i.e. not enough of the correct equipment at the onset of a deployment.

Sumps, I suppose by a "conventional" war we're looking at a Falklands conflict. The current train of thought is these 'wars' will never happen again; hence our need to look at the terrorist/insurgency/Afghan theatre of ops.

Mind you, saying that, you can defo see something on the horizon in say Iran or North Korea!!

 

[True Blue Jack]

The current train of thought is these 'wars' will never happen again;

Your train of thought, perhaps, and Lord Guthrie's apparently. Not even the Defence Green Paper suggests that is realistic.

 

[Shugster]

I think it is quite dangerous to think of the services, any of them, in isolation from the people they are supposed to defend. It's not like the Premier League, where all you feel is a little ****ed off on sunday morning if your team loses. In this game it's all about the wellbeing of the supporters.

What I am saying here is that whatever you operate, and whoever does it, must be a function of the demands placed or expected to be placed in order to meet the needs of national security - and not one iota more. You can lose sight of this particular forest, when "amongst the trees", where one can become naturally professioanally enamoured with the means of prosecuting security, rather than the desired ends.

Bottom line - the present job demands the military spending priority and with this budget, all the means. There is little or no slack for strategic considerations or "wish lists" - the majority of the voting public just won't wear it.

I agree, the forces should be equipped to do their primary task which is the defence of UK. Anything above that is nice to have but not necessary for our defence.

Following George Bush from one folly to another has cost us dear in money and lives and turned the way the, "Big cheeses", believe our forces should be structured in to anything but a UK defence force.

 

[busby1971]

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!!!!

Here's the crux of the matter. The Govt has over reached and over committed the forces and is unwilling to pick up the bill.

Funding for the forces needs to cover the cost of a standing force equiped to fulfill an a standing commitment, emergency situation, specified risk or known future problem. This would be the core cost and would include all the big shiney stuff.

Then as and when we are committed to additional conflicts we need to identify what extra assets are needed. This should then be funded out of the treasury reserve. What this Govt has done is ignore the above and focus on this newspaper headline grabbing needs instead. It is far too easy to spin this line as spending as a very good thing.

Funds required for the core military requirement, as specified in the last SDR, are being taken and spent on current need. If I reduce my pension contributions to pay for new car I'll have a great time now but will be eating kit e kat when I get older.

Military expenditure is like an insurance premium, if you don't pay the installments you are fIIcked when you need to rely on it.

 

[T93]

I agree, the forces should be equipped to do their primary task which is the defence of UK. Anything above that is nice to have but not necessary for our defence.

Following George Bush from one folly to another has cost us dear in money and lives and turned the way the, "Big cheeses", believe our forces should be structured in to anything but a UK defence force.

*******

As Shugster states, the primary task of the UK armed forces should be UK defence. Everything else should come in under this.

I would add how the (UK) is now perceived abroad as well as the financial cost of these little excursions abroad & the loss of lives incurred.

I can to a point understand how, due to the lack of awareness/experience American foreign policy works...BUT the UK!. We have centuries of experience of dealing/working in regards to other nations. Surely the wealth of knowledge etc from the days of empire has not been lost within the confines of the foreign office.

I cannot see how the UK went blind into Iraq/Afghanistan.

ok, I am putting my point across poorly. I trust you will understand what I am trying to put across.

 

[Xiphos]

While I can see an immediate need to sustain our current commitment to some kind of politically acceptable end.Afghanistan and neighbours are not the only cause for concern.Britain depends on access to resources to survive let alone prosper.As these resources become more finite so the need to secure them by all means will become apparent.What will we do if say we find our access to essential needs contested by China (P.R.C.)? True, diplomatic and Commercial efforts will be attempted ,but what if it ends in U.K. assets being directly threatened.Do we simply 'roll over'?I am certain we could not hope the U.S.A. would protect us.Air Dominance has made our masters complacent and as always dismissive of anything other than what they need to get through the next election.The defence of the U.K. does not end at the cliffs of Dover.

 

[CC]

Here's the crux of the matter. The Govt has over reached and over committed the forces and is unwilling to pick up the bill.

Funding for the forces needs to cover the cost of a standing force equiped to fulfill an a standing commitment, emergency situation, specified risk or known future problem. This would be the core cost and would include all the big shiney stuff.

Then as and when we are committed to additional conflicts we need to identify what extra assets are needed. This should then be funded out of the treasury reserve. What this Govt has done is ignore the above and focus on this newspaper headline grabbing needs instead. It is far too easy to spin this line as spending as a very good thing.

Funds required for the core military requirement, as specified in the last SDR, are being taken and spent on current need. If I reduce my pension contributions to pay for new car I'll have a great time now but will be eating kit e kat when I get older.

Military expenditure is like an insurance premium, if you don't pay the installments you are fIIcked when you need to rely on it.

Busby, totally agree and I like the way you've put it. The military is like an insurance premium, which of course we all pay in one way or another yet sometimes it's never needed. The one time you don't have insurance, and you smash your car up or your house falls down then you're fcuked. Problem is, with the current financial climate, does this, or another government, have the balls to keep paying these massive premiums.

 

[The Masked Geek]

each of the 3 Services is going to be parochial about what it needs with little or no consideration for the other 2.

Will they be so tautologous though? DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[True Blue Jack]

Will they be so tautologous though? DT_Xtremez_14:

Off Topic Tautology? Me? Which reminds me, I must phone the bank and ask for an estimated ETA on my new PIN number. DT_Xtremez_35:

 

[Stevienics]

The military is like an insurance premium, which of course we all pay in one way or another yet sometimes it's never needed. The one time you don't have insurance, and you smash your car up or your house falls down then you're fcuked. Problem is, with the current financial climate, does this, or another government, have the balls to keep paying these massive premiums.

Or do we simply accept that we should drive a smaller car , according to our means?

 

[billy bollox]

He said the RAF had ordered 232 Typhoons - but rarely needed more than a dozen fighters on recent operations. More helicopters, transport aircraft and unmanned drones could have been bought, he added.

He is right with what he has said here. Do we really need 232 Typhoons.
We have 10 year old hercs that have more flying hrs than some USAF H's that are 30 yrs old. We really need new PAX AC, our Tri stars are second hand and the VC 10 is on the way out.

Yes, we need them as rob jets to cannabalise!!!

 

[Warwick Hunt]

If the Army believe that money raised from a disbanded RAF will go to them, then they are sorely mistaken. Any cash raised from our 'death' will go to the NHS or schools or anything else that will reduce our national deficit. NOT defence.

 

[Realist78]

If the Army believe that money raised from a disbanded RAF will go to them, then they are sorely mistaken. Any cash raised from our 'death' will go to the NHS or schools or anything else that will reduce our national deficit. NOT defence.

That is bang on the money. All the squabbling will be music to those cnuts in the treasury, any 'savings' go back into the big pot, not the defence budget.

 

[The Masked Geek]

That is bang on the money.

Any money saved by the death of the RAF will be ploughed straight into paying benefits for scroungers and nere-do-wells.