Liam Fox interview on Defence Cuts - Telegraph

**Kitmarlowe** · 26-07-2010, 20:04

Originally Posted by REMFQuestions

Second Point @ Smithy: MBT's are not being scrapped because they are not bieng used in Afghan. In actual fact the Canadians have found excellent use for MBT in Kandahar.

MBT's will be scrapped because they are becoming redundant. Advances in rotary wing and UAV power expose them massively, not to mention the fact that Israel lost an entire Coy of Merkhava Mk 4 in Lebanon to IED's and guerilla tactics. The MBT is logistical nightmare - 65 tons of essentially useless metal which requires a ridiculous amount of maintenance and is only good for killing other tanks. A tank cannot hold ground, attack ground troops and is not compatible with a successful counter insurgency campaign.

I remember reading that before.....Hmmm...When was it? Oh yes. I remember now. 1973 Post Yom Kipper war when lots of Tanks were slotted by ATGW in vast and easy numbers and every armchair fuckwit was dribbling shite as usual.

Every single threat can be countered. It's called COMBINED ARMS OPS. It 's that subtle but clever mix of Infantry, Armour, Artillary, Engineers and AD that win battles.

BTW. In 1957 some other fuckwit dribbled shite about the end of Manned Fighters.....Still not happened and wouldn't be happening for a few more years.

**meridian** · 26-07-2010, 20:06

Originally Posted by REMFQuestions

As for it being uninformed. You are prob right, Fox absolutely does not have an entire Battalion worth of analysts and think tanks desperately trying to reconcile how to fund and equip and a military in such a way it can fight a current war AND prepare for the next.

So did Geoff Hoon

Analysts and Think Tanks, the same analysts and think tanks that bought us Rapid Effects, The Revolution in Military Affairs and COIN theory

Now that is the funniest thing I have heard all day

Originally Posted by REMFQuestions

Clinging to power?? How in Gods name can someone who is part of a newly formed Government be clinging to power?

Clinging to his ministerial post, Liam Fox is the odd right winger in a very centre right coalition government and widely seen as a threat to Cameron will a well documented series of disagreements and obvious leadership ambitions. Being in the MoD suits him down to the ground because he can those big boys made me do the cutting against my will as he drops his hat in the ring for any future leadership competition.

Have we all had a collective drop in awareness of what politicians are like

**REMFQuestions** · 26-07-2010, 20:26

Completely unwilling to admit you are wrong eh Meridian despite being called out twice for posting dribble.

That's it - you keep plugging away.

**meridian** · 26-07-2010, 20:30

I dont mind being called a cunt for posting drivel because I often do post drivel, as do we all

I might have missed the point a bit but I still maintain Liam Fox is trying to dress up the issue, sending mixed messages and coming out with some total bollox of his own.

I don't have the benefit of an army of analysts and often make a cunt of myself but then I am just some bloke on the internet and not the SoS Defence

**Caecilius** · 26-07-2010, 20:37

Originally Posted by meridian

I dont mind being called a cunt for posting drivel because I often do post drivel, as do we all

I might have missed the point a bit but I still maintain Liam Fox is trying to dress up the issue, sending mixed messages and coming out with some total bollox of his own.

I don't have the benefit of an army of analysts and often make a cunt of myself but then I am just some bloke on the internet and not the SoS Defence

That, to an extent, is his job. He is also supposed to oversee the cutting process to ensure that it is carried out in a manner which best defends the UK. He is not responsible for having to make cuts, that is a budgetary matter and therefore down to Osbourne and Cameron. I would be suprised is Fox hadn't privately made the suggestion to those two that the forces are currently underfunded, but no politician is going to publicly go against the Prime Minister and Chancellor. Even if he did, he'd only be quickly replaced by a yes man with less knowledge of defense matters.

**meridian** · 26-07-2010, 20:41

Originally Posted by Semper_Flexibilis

Minister can always face them and say 'Fuck off with this licence to steal, renegotiate downwards or we'll pull out'. Whats is the FSTA lot going to do, sue the MOD?

OK, back on another tangent :D

I agree, look at the AirTanker consortium, if they go to law they put a lot of business with the MoD in peril and in any revised deal they would all stand to gain anyway.

Same with the carriers and in fact any future contract, talk of penalty clauses is I think often overblown and doesnt take any account of the reality

**CAARPS** · 26-07-2010, 21:10

Originally Posted by REMFQuestions

Yawn. Nice backtrack. Clinging to power?? How in Gods name can someone who is part of a newly formed Government be clinging to power?

As for it being uninformed. You are prob right, Fox absolutely does not have an entire Battalion worth of analysts and think tanks desperately trying to reconcile how to fund and equip and a military in such a way it can fight a current war AND prepare for the next.

He prob thinks all of these things up by himself. You fucking retard.

Well that will be a first (bold), every single defence review since the second world war has been about saving money and I have served through quite a few in the last 28 years and been part of the mess afterwards when something happened that all those so called analysts failed to foresee

The whole thing is about cost cutting firstly, secondly and lastly. I have no issue with that if that is what required, however, as usual the politicians will just stand back and let the 3 services bitch fight with each other and within themselves to save thier piece of terf and senior officer posts, cherry pick what they want and say the decisions that have been made have been done so with the acquiescence of those in uniform thus washing their hands of any responsibility.

The politicians (unlike the soldiers) don’t hang around in the same job long enough to see the consequences of their decisions, they have long gone before the overstretch starts to bite (reading about stuff is far different from living through it)

Oh and I can be a retard as well ;)

**REMFQuestions** · 26-07-2010, 21:33

Originally Posted by CAARPS

Well that will be a first (bold), every single defence review since the second world war has been about saving money and I have served through quite a few in the last 28 years and been part of the mess afterwards when something happened that all those so called analysts failed to foresee

The whole thing is about cost cutting firstly, secondly and lastly. I have no issue with that if that is what required, however, as usual the politicians will just stand back and let the 3 services bitch fight with each other and within themselves to save thier piece of terf and senior officer posts, cherry pick what they want and say the decisions that have been made have been done so with the acquiescence of those in uniform thus washing their hands of any responsibility.

The politicians (unlike the soldiers) don’t hang around in the same job long enough to see the consequences of their decisions, they have long gone before the overstretch starts to bite (reading about stuff is far different from living through it)

Oh and I can be a retard as well ;)

Glad you think so because you sound like one. Seriously - no one has denied that it will be a cost cutting exercise but equally the Review is also the time to start asking pertinent questions about what engagements the UK should be part of, what extent it should be involved and in what capacity.

I hold you to your retard comment because you seem to be completely (and ignorantly) overlooking ALL of the column inches in the press and arrse that have been devoted to this very subject. Experience of previous SDR's is absolutely irrelevant to this one. New politicians, new budgets, new thinking and completely different world with new threats.

**Semper_Flexibilis** · 26-07-2010, 22:01

Originally Posted by pombsen-armchair-warrior

Yes - and win.

At which point the Minister should ring the various head honchos and point out that in future, if something can be bought abroad instead of their kit, it will be.

**Semper_Flexibilis** · 26-07-2010, 22:03

Originally Posted by meridian

talk of penalty clauses is I think often overblown and doesnt take any account of the reality

I suspect that some of the issue is Ministers and head sheds having one eye on post career directorships.

**incendiarycutlery** · 26-07-2010, 22:05

Originally Posted by REMFQuestions

Experience of previous SDR's is absolutely irrelevant to this one. New politicians, new budgets, new thinking and completely different world with new threats.

Oh? Politicians have been the same since time immemorial, budgets are always tight (you'll not see such reviews when money is plentiful) Thinking would be nice, new or old, but it's rarely a feature of these things. Lastly, each time it's a completely different world. In that it's the same. Funnily enough, it's rare that the answer proves right.

**CAARPS** · 26-07-2010, 22:21

Originally Posted by REMFQuestions

Glad you think so because you sound like one. Seriously - no one has denied that it will be a cost cutting exercise but equally the Review is also the time to start asking pertinent questions about what engagements the UK should be part of, what extent it should be involved and in what capacity.

I hold you to your retard comment because you seem to be completely (and ignorantly) overlooking ALL of the column inches in the press and arrse that have been devoted to this very subject. Experience of previous SDR's is absolutely irrelevant to this one. New politicians, new budgets, new thinking and completely different world with new threats.

Nope I am just bearing in mind the main theme of the SDSR – Army SITREP 001 (on Armynet if you’re interested) which states “There is still a long way to go in the conduct of the SDSR and nothing has yet been decided” or “Our case will not be helped by ill-informed, undisciplined or premature private or public speculation about an evolving process”.

Me stating that the review is about cuts (which we all know) is hardly speculation

Sort of contradicts the man at the top saying "I would say, what do Challenger tanks in Germany and the costs of maintaining them and the personnel required to train for them, what does that contribute to what's happening in Afghanistan?"

As for “New politicians, new budgets, new thinking and completely different world with new threats”.

1981 (The Nott Review)
We have a choice. Either we can continue to pretend that there is no problem, that we can wish away the threat or imagine that the United Kingdom can somehow sustain, replace and enhance its operational effectiveness without a fresh look at how we perform our tasks

I see my task as a simple one, and no amount of special pleading from one part of our defence establishment or another will divert me from it. It is to form a defence view—not a single Service view—of how we can conduct our tasks within the Alliance in the defence of freedom and democracy.

1998 (George Robertson)
The Review is radical, reflecting a changing world, in which the confrontation of the Cold War has been replaced by a complex mixture of uncertainty and instability. These problems pose a real threat to our security, whether in the Balkans, the Middle East or in some troublespot yet to ignite.

Just 2 examples of a New New politicians, new budgets, new thinking and completely different world with new threats”. Without mentioning the completely different world of the 1990 ‘Options for Change’ Review

All sounds a bit familiar, The more things change the more they stay the same ;)

**CAARPS** · 26-07-2010, 22:42

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

Every single threat can be countered. It's called COMBINED ARMS OPS. It 's that subtle but clever mix of Infantry, Armour, Artillary, Engineers and AD that win battles.

The current buzzword is CAM (Combined Arms Manoeuvre) you know it is the law that we have to change our acronyms on a biannual basis :D:D

**saladin** · 26-07-2010, 23:47

Its a joke. The estimate has been well and truely situated by the announcement in advance of the likely scale of the cuts. It is SFA to do with what the threats may be, its all about cuts - and the easiest thing to cut is units and capabilities because they are nice tidy boxes, easy to measure. Taking a long hard look at how we do business, cutting out all the overblown processes and internal job-creation ? Nope, too difficult, lets just bin a Bde or two......but keep all the Unit Safety Advisors, ECI teams and Defence Estates Archaelogists etc......

Start with the likely threats.
Decide what capabilities we want to deploy - have we given up on having a full Div capability ?
Then on a clean sheet of paper look at what we need to do to support it, ground up.
Overlay that wiring diagram on the current.....
I am absolutely certain that HUGE chunks of non-essential crap could be culled without a single front-line unit being touched.