Army ‘to be cut by 20,000’ if No 10 plan is approved

Unless I'm mistaken the idea to "Civilianize" (Privatise) such roles in the Forces was born in 1994 under the Front Line First Defence Budget Cuts.
Even before 'Options for Change raised its ugly head in 1990, civilianisation of service units was well in place in the 1980's. Airwork Services was "managing" the eng/supply side at some flying training stations such as, IIRC, Linton-on-Ouse and Church Fenton.
 

Mölders 1

Old-Salt
Even before 'Options for Change raised its ugly head in 1990, civilianisation of service units was well in place in the 1980's. Airwork Services was "managing" the eng/supply side at some flying training stations such as, IIRC, Linton-on-Ouse and Church Fenton.
Understood.

For the record the Maintenance Base at nearby R.A.F. St Athan was Privatised (sorry Civilianized) back in the later half of the 90's.....the Civie Contractors working there were creaming it in until it closed down.
 
If we really do go the way of 'home-defence plus troops for NATO' then we would best be served with serious planning about it, not just random reductions of the easiest bits. Last year sometime I did suggest keeping Para and RM (two battalions equivalent each) and their support. Everything else army-related should be volunteer-reservists with a structure to mobilise them rapidly, possibly comprising ready-reserve (eg. twelve weeks) and twelve months NTM units. To make that work would take planning and training over more than one government lifetime, and including a big boost in some sort of nationalism at schools in order to ensure enough serious volunteers. So it will never happen.
 
The Conservatives cut public spending, they want less people on the public sector payroll. This isn’t surprising.
The Army is paid for what it might have to do, not so much what they do. The armed forces are always easy targets for Whitehall.
Cummings and his cronies probably can’t justify having 80 odd thousand squaddies being paid by the taxpayer.
A return to old-fashioned (and I mean old) Toryism!
 
There are currently 60,000 soldiers fit to deploy (including all those who have just passed Phase 1 training).

In the eyes of the Treasury, that's 60,000 pensions too many. Considering how slavish the Civil Service is to the cünts (no other word adequately describes them) at McKinsey, Accenture, KPMG and the like, they probably believe that we should outsource everything to another country as and if we need soldiers: "Hello, is that Chad? Could you please send over 200,000 chaps (and chapesses of course) as we appear to have a spot of bother with the Chinese and Russians. We need them by Tuesday next week and we'll pay 5 dollars per day for each soldier."
I have thought this for some time. I always thought it might get to a point where a PM goes to war only to be visited by accountants who start going through items one by one. Much to the PMs astonishment. That was the basis of my satire, anyway.
The reality is much more sobering.
 
If we really do go the way of 'home-defence plus troops for NATO' then we would best be served with serious planning about it, not just random reductions of the easiest bits. Last year sometime I did suggest keeping Para and RM (two battalions equivalent each) and their support. Everything else army-related should be volunteer-reservists with a structure to mobilise them rapidly, possibly comprising ready-reserve (eg. twelve weeks) and twelve months NTM units. To make that work would take planning and training over more than one government lifetime, and including a big boost in some sort of nationalism at schools in order to ensure enough serious volunteers. So it will never happen.
That sort of readiness would see the UK on the NATO naughty step very quickly, and as we dissociate ourselves with the EU, we're at pains to show everyone what a wonderfully committed NATO ally the UK is.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
for a while now I've thought that the whole of the UK deployable force structure needs to be modelled on the USMC which if memory serves has around the same budget yet manages a lot more bang for its buck. we just seem to throw money away continuously.

a strong navy that is fully deployable and fitted with not for.

the RAF should be reduced to an airline/air national guard and be told no more often.

the useless infrastructure and top heavy brass contingents need to either be slashed or make the civvies at abbey wood deployable. why do we have a lt General for green issues FFS? a corporal can do that job.

IMO we also need to do something about the voluntary reserves by training them properly, giving the right cash incentives and legal protections while having enough of them to actually be usefull
 
Understood.

For the record the Maintenance Base at nearby R.A.F. St Athan was Privatised (sorry Civilianized) back in the later half of the 90's.....the Civie Contractors working there were creaming it in until it closed down.
I heard the contrary** - that pay was shite because It was full of "left the RAF but not quite" types and so the wages were topped up by the pension. Wasnt a place I recall connies queing up for

**Of course it could be Pay was shite for the ex crab permies but connies had a fair whack and time has dulled my memmory.

In which case paying decent wages may have saved a large connie bill by filling permy slots
 
for a while now I've thought that the whole of the UK deployable force structure needs to be modelled on the USMC which if memory serves has around the same budget yet manages a lot more bang for its buck. we just seem to throw money away continuously.

a strong navy that is fully deployable and fitted with not for.

the RAF should be reduced to an airline/air national guard and be told no more often.

the useless infrastructure and top heavy brass contingents need to either be slashed or make the civvies at abbey wood deployable. why do we have a lt General for green issues FFS? a corporal can do that job.

IMO we also need to do something about the voluntary reserves by training them properly, giving the right cash incentives and legal protections while having enough of them to actually be usefull
And when the USMC gets in the dwang, it can call on the other services for fire support, lift, and all the rest. The USMC as an 'independent' service is the greatest piece of propaganda in a long while.

As for the contribution of the UK services, the RN with CASD and its commitment to Standing NATO Forces (SNMG/SNMCMG) mean it is continually on ops, as is the RAF as part of NATO Air Policing. Army SF is held at readiness for national tasks, but apart from its turn in the barrel for the NRF, much/most of the 'green' army is, year on year, doing very little in terms of operational output.
 

Truxx

LE
I may just keep my own councel here, but when we only have enough tanks for the two regiments of that square brigade then the rest is obvious.

The only thing holding us back will be the NATO 2percent of GDP thing. Stand by for some very creative accounting.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
To the surprise of nobody, it turns out the entire thing is fabricated:

20200705_200559.jpg
 
My tuppence worth, linked to the above: this has been inevitable for the army for a long time, maybe 30 years.
The army should have moved to big corps of infantry, armour and guns, with support units.
Lay up all cavalry guidons, foot colours etc (if you want make them TA units for regional recruiting) and form into squadrons/battalions/batterys for starts.
Then brigade them from there as and when needed. Allow full inter-operability, so a capable person could switch from one group to another more easily.
Amalgamations, reducing battalions etc has only sliced so far, and been fairly expensive. History and tradition is great, and something to celebrate. But what your forebears did at Dettingen or Minden is no guarantee to future performance.
 

aardvark64

Old-Salt
Have seen various reports about what may or may not be in the defence review. Cummings doesn't suffer fools gladly and the Service chiefs would do well to remember that they have to justify their existence in terms the the politicians and general public understand. Otherwise, they're toast.

My bet is that whoever briefed the ST was a worried Army head shed. They were making a desperate attempt to try to pre-empt budget cuts to his/her branch. It will backfire on them spectacularly
 
That sort of readiness would see the UK on the NATO naughty step very quickly, and as we dissociate ourselves with the EU, we're at pains to show everyone what a wonderfully committed NATO ally the UK is.
Yes it would. And that would be the case even with a conscious plan to go in that direction, instead of the strategy-free drift in a random direction which we are unfortunately currently experiencing. I'm trying to say that if we have less resources than we do ambition, we should at least acknowledge that and positively plan to do the best job possible.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top