A Times artical on UKs Defence problems

#3
As Lewis Page, a former naval officer, claims in his book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs...
Ooh, look, a career journalist has taken Page's chip on his shoulder as being a worthy assessment of the British military so has written an even poorer condensed version.

They hear of failed helicopters, unguarded vehicles, lack of body armour and poor medical support. “Unforgivable and inexcusable
Referring to events in 2003. [Some] things have moved on since then.

Above all they shut out the army
??? A2 upgrade of the SA80, Minimi, Javelin, Osprey/Kestrel, Bulldog/Mastiff/Pinzgauer/MWMIK, Gucci boots and a myriad of other items for improving the personal comfort of soldiers...

This year the Eurofighter, carrier and Trident projects all came on stream at £5 billion annually between them and the defence budget has hit the predictable wall.
Trident and CVF are 'on stream'? I'd be interested in seeing physical evidence of either.

An admiral will not doubt (in public) the RAF’s need for more jet fighters. A general will never question the need for carriers. An air marshal will cast no aspersions on Trident.
Do ranks not require capitalisation any more. Discourteous oik.

During the apartheid regime in South Africa...
We're not apartheid South Africa, we're a First World, G7 nation with an expeditionary military strategy and overseas commitments. Apartheid South African military strategy being "killing those in the region of a darker hue" is not something we should be copying.

That is why the army must wait until 2011 for a new flight of British-built Lynx helicopters (at £14m each) instead of buying the bigger American Sikorsky (at £6m) available this year.
About half of that £14m will be immediately recouped in tax and £6m may be what the Americans pay for them, but it isn't what we would pay for them. Nor would they be available this year, or next year - 2010 would be more realistic, assuming enough crew could be recruited.

According to Page there are still more admirals ashore than ships afloat, more air marshals than squadrons aloft.
And? Do Naval bases not require Admirals? Projects not require Air Marshals? Should we have Lance Corporals as military attachés? After learning capitalisation, Jenkins should turn his attention to the structure of the military.

Britain is still buying weapons of little or no relevance. Carriers, destroyers, frigates and submarines date from the days of food convoys and empire.
No, they date from Britain being an island, the sea being Britain's primary source of everything, any hostile element being able to defeat Britain by holding it under seige and the Army being expeditionary. Navies cannot be procured under a UOR.

Interceptor jets are fighting the battle of Britain.
What interceptor jets would they be? The only fast jets we are buying are Typhoon and F35, both programmes of which started long before anyone envisaged hot, sandy wars and at least one of which will be providing essential CAS.

Every modern British war is fought by the army (even the Falklands), for which the navy and air force should be refashioned as subordinate services.
Now that moronic, crass, ill-informed buffoon is starting to boil my piss. The Falklands was primarily a Naval war, led by the Navy, wholly reliant on the Navy and, to a lesser extent, the RAF, and in which many Matelots were casualties. The invasion of Iraq came from the sea and the Royal Marines have hardly been of minor note. As this is CA, I'll refrain from calling him lady-parts.

They require the one thing the government puts lowest on its priority list, a well equipped and highly mobile army.
And how is this well equipped and highly mobile army meant to be well equipped and highly mobile without a navy and air force?

This often fatal delay is almost entirely due to the lack of helicopters, caused by a shortage not of money but of ministry competence.

Money is squandered on equipment that is useless in either theatre - or in any foreseeable one. For want of that money, equipment vital to victory is forgone.
It's generally not a good idea to contradict yourself.
Perhaps he could put his psychic abilities to use in the MoD. I assume that as he can foresee future wars, he also foresaw the current ones.

Another ill-informed diatribe from an armchair General with no understanding of long term strategy, lead-times on complex equipment and that it doesn't matter if the Army has personal force fields, plasma rifles and hover-tanks if it doesn't have an effective logs chain. No doubt there'll be another one next month, when someone decides to regurgitate Page's agenda.

The reasons for equipment/capability shortages aren't that the Navy buys ships and the RAF buys aircraft, they're because we're involved in two medium-scale operations - and many smaller ones - yet have a peace time budget and that the government constantly moves the goal-posts in major procurement, driving up the price whilst reducing the capability.
 
#4
Yes
'Two medium scale operations and many smaller ones with a peace time budget'.
Afghanistan has gone on for 6 years + and the Army has steadily been reduced in size, especially in the Arm which above all others does the dirty work.
Did the Government plan for a long war, are they doing it now ? will Tom have to muddle along on Promises of what will come in 1-2-5 years time ?
I do wonder just what the tasks will be then. The Heavy Army is slowly being replaced by a Light Army.
Will this New Army be the Talked about Euro Army ?
john
 
#6
Mods - To save cross-posting, would you combine this thread containing ottar's fine analysis with the 'Lovely new aircraft carrier, we’re fighting in the desert!' thread addressing the same article please?
 
#7
"According to Page there are still more admirals ashore than ships afloat, more air marshals than squadrons aloft."

There are roughly 35 Admirals in the Royal Navy occupying single service and joint commands. That is roughly 0.01% of total service manpower. By this argument, we could say that there are too many Able Seaman in the RN, as they outnumber the ships afloat by several thousand.
 
#8
ottar said:
As Lewis Page, a former naval officer, claims in his book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs...
Ooh, look, a career journalist has taken Page's chip on his shoulder as being a worthy assessment of the British military so has written an even poorer condensed version.

They hear of failed helicopters, unguarded vehicles, lack of body armour and poor medical support. “Unforgivable and inexcusable
Referring to events in 2003. [Some] things have moved on since then.

Above all they shut out the army
??? A2 upgrade of the SA80, Minimi, Javelin, Osprey/Kestrel, Bulldog/Mastiff/Pinzgauer/MWMIK, Gucci boots and a myriad of other items for improving the personal comfort of soldiers...

This year the Eurofighter, carrier and Trident projects all came on stream at £5 billion annually between them and the defence budget has hit the predictable wall.
Trident and CVF are 'on stream'? I'd be interested in seeing physical evidence of either.

An admiral will not doubt (in public) the RAF’s need for more jet fighters. A general will never question the need for carriers. An air marshal will cast no aspersions on Trident.
Do ranks not require capitalisation any more. Discourteous oik.

During the apartheid regime in South Africa...
We're not apartheid South Africa, we're a First World, G7 nation with an expeditionary military strategy and overseas commitments. Apartheid South African military strategy being "killing those in the region of a darker hue" is not something we should be copying.

That is why the army must wait until 2011 for a new flight of British-built Lynx helicopters (at £14m each) instead of buying the bigger American Sikorsky (at £6m) available this year.
About half of that £14m will be immediately recouped in tax and £6m may be what the Americans pay for them, but it isn't what we would pay for them. Nor would they be available this year, or next year - 2010 would be more realistic, assuming enough crew could be recruited.

According to Page there are still more admirals ashore than ships afloat, more air marshals than squadrons aloft.
And? Do Naval bases not require Admirals? Projects not require Air Marshals? Should we have Lance Corporals as military attachés? After learning capitalisation, Jenkins should turn his attention to the structure of the military.

Britain is still buying weapons of little or no relevance. Carriers, destroyers, frigates and submarines date from the days of food convoys and empire.
No, they date from Britain being an island, the sea being Britain's primary source of everything, any hostile element being able to defeat Britain by holding it under seige and the Army being expeditionary. Navies cannot be procured under a UOR.

Interceptor jets are fighting the battle of Britain.
What interceptor jets would they be? The only fast jets we are buying are Typhoon and F35, both programmes of which started long before anyone envisaged hot, sandy wars and at least one of which will be providing essential CAS.

Every modern British war is fought by the army (even the Falklands), for which the navy and air force should be refashioned as subordinate services.
Now that moronic, crass, ill-informed buffoon is starting to boil my piss. The Falklands was primarily a Naval war, led by the Navy, wholly reliant on the Navy and, to a lesser extent, the RAF, and in which many Matelots were casualties. The invasion of Iraq came from the sea and the Royal Marines have hardly been of minor note. As this is CA, I'll refrain from calling him lady-parts.

They require the one thing the government puts lowest on its priority list, a well equipped and highly mobile army.
And how is this well equipped and highly mobile army meant to be well equipped and highly mobile without a navy and air force?

This often fatal delay is almost entirely due to the lack of helicopters, caused by a shortage not of money but of ministry competence.

Money is squandered on equipment that is useless in either theatre - or in any foreseeable one. For want of that money, equipment vital to victory is forgone.
It's generally not a good idea to contradict yourself.
Perhaps he could put his psychic abilities to use in the MoD. I assume that as he can foresee future wars, he also foresaw the current ones.

Another ill-informed diatribe from an armchair General with no understanding of long term strategy, lead-times on complex equipment and that it doesn't matter if the Army has personal force fields, plasma rifles and hover-tanks if it doesn't have an effective logs chain. No doubt there'll be another one next month, when someone decides to regurgitate Page's agenda.

The reasons for equipment/capability shortages aren't that the Navy buys ships and the RAF buys aircraft, they're because we're involved in two medium-scale operations - and many smaller ones - yet have a peace time budget and that the government constantly moves the goal-posts in major procurement, driving up the price whilst reducing the capability.
Absolutely spot-on and a masterclass in "FisKing"! Please tell us you're going to submit this to The Sunday Times in rebuttal so that we may enjoy it over our breakfasts next week? Pleeease?
 
#9
Hope you dont mind ottar, I posted a link to your excellent analysis under said article in Timesonline. Jenkins is an unreconstructed muppet.

Cheers
 
#10
ottar said:
As Lewis Page, a former naval officer, claims in his book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs...
Ooh, look, a career journalist has taken Page's chip on his shoulder as being a worthy assessment of the British military so has written an even poorer condensed version.

They hear of failed helicopters, unguarded vehicles, lack of body armour and poor medical support. “Unforgivable and inexcusable
Referring to events in 2003. [Some] things have moved on since then.

Above all they shut out the army
??? A2 upgrade of the SA80, Minimi, Javelin, Osprey/Kestrel, Bulldog/Mastiff/Pinzgauer/MWMIK, Gucci boots and a myriad of other items for improving the personal comfort of soldiers...

This year the Eurofighter, carrier and Trident projects all came on stream at £5 billion annually between them and the defence budget has hit the predictable wall.
Trident and CVF are 'on stream'? I'd be interested in seeing physical evidence of either.

An admiral will not doubt (in public) the RAF’s need for more jet fighters. A general will never question the need for carriers. An air marshal will cast no aspersions on Trident.
Do ranks not require capitalisation any more. Discourteous oik.

During the apartheid regime in South Africa...
We're not apartheid South Africa, we're a First World, G7 nation with an expeditionary military strategy and overseas commitments. Apartheid South African military strategy being "killing those in the region of a darker hue" is not something we should be copying.

That is why the army must wait until 2011 for a new flight of British-built Lynx helicopters (at £14m each) instead of buying the bigger American Sikorsky (at £6m) available this year.
About half of that £14m will be immediately recouped in tax and £6m may be what the Americans pay for them, but it isn't what we would pay for them. Nor would they be available this year, or next year - 2010 would be more realistic, assuming enough crew could be recruited.

According to Page there are still more admirals ashore than ships afloat, more air marshals than squadrons aloft.
And? Do Naval bases not require Admirals? Projects not require Air Marshals? Should we have Lance Corporals as military attachés? After learning capitalisation, Jenkins should turn his attention to the structure of the military.

Britain is still buying weapons of little or no relevance. Carriers, destroyers, frigates and submarines date from the days of food convoys and empire.
No, they date from Britain being an island, the sea being Britain's primary source of everything, any hostile element being able to defeat Britain by holding it under seige and the Army being expeditionary. Navies cannot be procured under a UOR.

Interceptor jets are fighting the battle of Britain.
What interceptor jets would they be? The only fast jets we are buying are Typhoon and F35, both programmes of which started long before anyone envisaged hot, sandy wars and at least one of which will be providing essential CAS.

Every modern British war is fought by the army (even the Falklands), for which the navy and air force should be refashioned as subordinate services.
Now that moronic, crass, ill-informed buffoon is starting to boil my piss. The Falklands was primarily a Naval war, led by the Navy, wholly reliant on the Navy and, to a lesser extent, the RAF, and in which many Matelots were casualties. The invasion of Iraq came from the sea and the Royal Marines have hardly been of minor note. As this is CA, I'll refrain from calling him lady-parts.

They require the one thing the government puts lowest on its priority list, a well equipped and highly mobile army.
And how is this well equipped and highly mobile army meant to be well equipped and highly mobile without a navy and air force?

This often fatal delay is almost entirely due to the lack of helicopters, caused by a shortage not of money but of ministry competence.

Money is squandered on equipment that is useless in either theatre - or in any foreseeable one. For want of that money, equipment vital to victory is forgone.
It's generally not a good idea to contradict yourself.
Perhaps he could put his psychic abilities to use in the MoD. I assume that as he can foresee future wars, he also foresaw the current ones.

Another ill-informed diatribe from an armchair General with no understanding of long term strategy, lead-times on complex equipment and that it doesn't matter if the Army has personal force fields, plasma rifles and hover-tanks if it doesn't have an effective logs chain. No doubt there'll be another one next month, when someone decides to regurgitate Page's agenda.

The reasons for equipment/capability shortages aren't that the Navy buys ships and the RAF buys aircraft, they're because we're involved in two medium-scale operations - and many smaller ones - yet have a peace time budget and that the government constantly moves the goal-posts in major procurement, driving up the price whilst reducing the capability.
If you are ever in this area give me a shout and I'll buy you a drink. Incidentally I love the "management speak". There is a girl serving in alocal bar who is "On Stream" to do naughty things to R_M in 3 years time - she doesn'tknow it yet either 8)

Incidentally don't ever run for Parliament - common sense isn't really what's needed there.
 
#11
rickshaw-major said:
Incidentally don't ever run for Parliament - common sense isn't really what's needed there.
As much as I would like to be SoS Defence (full time), it'll never happen as:
a) I could never join any of the political parties as I consider modern party politics to be an affront to the principles of democracy;
b) I could never join any of the political parties as they don't generally accept people with a modicum of integrity;
c) I have no tact so wouldn't last five minutes without using unparliamentary words such as corrupt, liar, coward, blackguard and traitor, and would be even less popular upon distribution of niðstangs to the corrupt, lying, cowardly blackguards and traitors.

That said, while 'c' would result in a very short career, it would be marvelous fun and rather fulfilling.
 
#12
ottar,

I agree with both your posts above.

Nevertheless, if you look at the 'capability' of these two 65,000T carriers, they don't seem to offer much of an improvement over current affairs. In that sense, they seem to be yet another procurement white elephant made for political - not military - considerations.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads