Brown’s defence inheritance

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by mazoldboy, May 11, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The new PM has some tough calls to make with our beleaguered armed forces,......make love not war!!!....
  3. Stonker

    Stonker On ROPs

    I met him at JDSC in 1982: he'd hiked across the Falklands with H Jones, and had his tape of the last ever interview with Jones, nicked from his bergen while he was up front at Goose Green.

    On-side, or what?

    Over-simplification? A quick word-count tells me the piece is 306 words long. :D

    Could you write a 'next steps in defence procurement' brief for 2nd PUS in less than 2,000? 8)
  4. "tiny bit of over-simplification"

    No sorry wrong.

    'We have had both the Army and Marines at war, but having to make to do with peacetime funding.'

    Unfortunately correct.
  5. Stonker

    Stonker On ROPs

    Hey! JW - long time since we've posted on the same thread. Good to 'hear your voice'.
  6. I agree with what he has to say about the Trident replacement but not his sentiment about the T45s, Typhoon or even the aircraft carriers. we need them otherwise the rest of the armed forces fester and become obsolete. I do not think these are obsolete and I think they are sorely required.

    My issue is that he seems only to propose a rethink of current funding rather than increased funding which should be paying for the above and for the equipment that the troops on the ground desperately need as well.
  7. If he was down south in 82 and doesn't realise the requirement for air defence destroyers and air cover :? :? :?

    It's very pro-army, this is an army site = must be good :x
  8. Brown's Inheritance !

    I luvved the way the Beeb showed Blur the other day making a speech early on in his first term saying words to the effect of
    "We have the chance to be the first generation NOT to send it's troops to war"
    and the following with the comment that HE 'Blur' sent more troops to fight in wars then any PM since Churchill.

    Armies are exspensive in peacetime, Wars send that cost through the roof.
    Everyone who ever wore Her Majesties Uniform learned the age old tale of train hard and many learned the fight easy (easier ! ) bit.
    If Government does not provied the troops it Commands in Her Majesties name with the large ammount of money nessasary for trainging and equipment then the pittance it spends is waste, money down the drain.
    Mess up your educational system or your health system as this current government has done and you have time for someone to repair your blunders.
    Foul up your defence Stragey and you may be lucky to get a second chance.
    That worked it the past, 1940 being the last example.
    But now ? No.
    Gorden you have started well saying you'll do away with Spin and get back to 'Proper' old style Government.
    Just remember Tone Dear Tone in his first comments.
  9. Like Max Hastings, the self-proclaimed liberator of Stanley, Robert Fox is fiercely pro-Army but often displays an anti-RN and RAF bias. While I agree that the usual answer is 'boots on the ground', how does he think the 'boots' (and their air support, armour, fuel, ammo, stores, etc) will be delivered, protected and sustained in a hostile environment when there's no host nation support available? It sounds like he's already forgotten the lessons of the Falklands war.

    Too many people already take the simplistic view that the Army captured the Falklands (wot, no Royal Marines or Naval Gunfire Support?) and the RAF shot down the Argentine Air Force (wot, no RN Sea Harriers?) while the RN just lost ships (so how did our people and kit arrive 8,000 miles away and achieve the aim then? And what about RN submarines forcing the Argentine Navy to scurry back into port?)

    I don't mind a bit of inter-service rivalry but any attempts to set one service against the others should be resisted. United we stand... and all that sort of thing. The new carriers and Type 45 destroyers (8-12 of them as mandated by SDR) are vital to retain any credible global capability or we will ALL be reduced to a home defence force, unable to counteract any developing threat until it reaches our shores.
  11. New ships will no doubt be welcome. I seem to recall they also need a lot of fuel and the odd sailor. The lack of these is no doubt why all too often what looks like the bulk of the fleet is harboured up in port.