Brown Brings Down The Axe On Our Military

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Tigs2, Feb 17, 2008.

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. Brown Brings The Axe Down On Our Military

    From Todays Sunday Times

    I am at a total loss guys :(

    I hate to think of the effect this will have on the morale of our men and women in the sandpit.

    If this proves to be true CDS and our Chiefs of respective armed forces should all have the moral courage to bring Gordon Brown and Des Browne to their knees over this.

    So now we know where some of the money is coming from to pay for the £25 Billion we have thrown at Northern Rock!!!
  2. The links below would seem to bely the Times' arguement, Tigs.

    Green Light to Carrier Build

    Wounded troops finally win better care from army

    British troops get 'laser eyes'

    Bids asked for £800 first phase of ship building
  3. Carriers; No contract signed means no contract signed Sven, no matter what the Scotsman Newspaper says

    ‘Wounded win new levels of care’ You must be the only person in the UK who accepts the Governments bullsh!t at face value Sven, any upbeat Defence story published first in the Guardian or Observer is just a bit of No10 spin. Even Guardian hacks admit it.

    The C4 thing is a minor purchase that should have been done years ago and was only approved because it means jobs in Scotland.

    And from the FT; six tankers do not a Navy make, especially as they can also be leased out for commercial use, which they may well be.
  4. Only one link goes to the guardian. The others link to that bastion of the left, the Financial Times as well as channel4 and the scotsman
  5. Sounds mad I know but I've come to think it's deliberate. Break morale before rebuilding a new model, politically correct, armed forces. Loyalty oath to the EU etc.

    Keeps reminding me of what happened with the Old Bill with the Scarman report and McPherson reports etc. Keep hammering em until morale breaks then rebuild.
  6. Didn't deliberate hampering of a countries armed forces and damaging their capability by a subject of that nation count as treason? I know Blair got rid of the treason laws are replaced them with the Terrorism acts, but couldn't they be brought back for two last cases.
  7. Hello,

    I was rather surprised to read this in one of those articles Sven linked to:

    Neither the Ministry of Defence nor Thales has been in existence for 120 years.

    Mights,maybes and green lights do not aircraft carriers make.
    They do however fill newspaper column inches with the impression of government fully supporting the forces,whatever the reality maybe.

    You may find this article in today's sunday Times interesting:

    To quote the article:

    Sven,to ask a personal question,if you don't mind,am I correct in saying that you are a Liberal Democrat?
    If so,you do seem to spend a great deal of time defending a Labour government.
    Even when the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman is critical of them.
    Was Nick Harvey wrong when he said:

    On a different note,the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary has a requirement for around thirty large ships of all types,each with a life of about thirty years.
    Has it not occured to the Ministry of Defence that this is sufficient to keep one Naval Dockyard busy with a constant flow of work,thus retaining a strategic capability whilst minimising costs by spreading overheads across the whole large ship fleet.
    For that reason alone I sincerely hope the fleet oilers are built here instead of in Korea.
    They might also wish to consider the benefits of basing the entire support fleet on a single hull and machinery design.

    A cynic might suggest the idea of building ships in Korea is merely a ruse to cast the government in a positive light when it announces "Ships to be built in Britain instead of Korea!".
    At the same time the delay in the carrier programme is announced of course.

    This also makes interesting reading:

    To quote Mick Smith:

    Only yesterday i was wondering why a government minister was making a great fuss about a very minor maintenance contract for a destroyer:

  8. Interesting reading from C4:

    "Serjeant Richard Bennett, of 3 Rifles artillery battalion based in Edinburgh, is among those who will deploy to Afghanistan later this year."

    Now, I may not be able to keep up with all the new names but this one has me foxed!
  9. There seems to be one option, THEY either pay for the war, or get out!

    While the idiots in Whitehall cut and slash at the defence budget and then BROON cuts it some more, we continue to look like the Poor Man of the world.

    Why does BROON put even more lives at risk, I know he is preparing us for the EU Army, but that is no excuse for him not to be fit for purpose!

    Or will we again go down the Lend / Lease path, or have we already started?

    This makes me so very angry, the PBI yet again suffers for the fools in Whitehall in their Ivory Towers! :x :x :x
  10. Yes it does sound mad, but well with whats in power now, i think you may be right.
  11. Well, it always happens when people vote labour,always has,always will.Don't people ever learn?????
  12. Rising fuel prices will also take a nice big chunk of the Defence Budget,the problem is it's one of those things that slips through,time and again.

    Every time the price of oil goes up so does the cost of fuels for the Armed Forces,and it all comes from the same pile of cash.
  13. Sympathetic_Reaction

    Sympathetic_Reaction LE Book Reviewer

    They will be using the same arguement that BAE systems do....part of the company (in BAE case, the old Royal ordance factories) have been supplying the British Government/monarch for several hundred years.

    Classic twisting of the truth to make it sound good.

  14. With regard to the 'government bullsh1t', I rather thought that it was a military man - Surgeon-General Lt-Gen Louis Lillywhite no less - who is reporting TO PARLIAMENT. Not government spin, not government bullsh1t but a report from the top bloke on His assets. One that He prepared for the approporiate committee in our legislative machine.

    With regard to the carriers - we shall see.

    As for Your arguement about the oilers - spurious. The fact is they will be there to replenish the carrier groups when needed. Note this is only the first phase of the project.

    And I see You have ignored the purchase of the target aquisition systems altogether.


    With regards to my welcoming this government going in the right direction - that is exactly what I am doing. Like a small child who asks for their potty rather than relieving themselves into their nappy this government should be encouraged to carry on the motion. Charles Kennedy said that we should acknowledge when the government does the right thing, i am simply doing that.

    I have and do deplore the fact that defence spending is the lowest since the 1930s, percentile-wise. However, to deny that spending is not taking place would be scurrilous.

    As for Nicks comments on the coroners report, I cannot say if He was right or not, from the quote He gave. If there was a lack of equipment because it was not purchased then Harvey would be right. If however the equipment was there but not in the hands of the end user then surely it is the fault of the holder for not getting the kit to where it was supposed to be.

    Until I can read the report I do not know which is which.
  15. Sven, the majority of the very welcome spending is for kit required on operations and even I, seething with hatred for 'New' Labour, acknowledge that. However, Urgent Operational Requirements are not funded 'through life' and they are only to be used on that specific operation for the duration that it can be justified. After that, if the Services wish to retain that capability, it has to be brought within (and funded by) the Equipment Plan. As with all wars, the pace of technological advance increases with development of threat / counter-threat. So none of these capabilities are enduring enhancements to operational capability, unless funding is diverted from other existing projects in order to bring them into core.

    So the only enhancement that has been 'approved' is the Carrier project, which was a politically-inspired plan (albeit with the strong internal backing of the RN, understandably) to allow King Tony (and now Court Jester Gordon) to massage his own ego on the world stage. The fact that the Navy have had to mortgage every other capability in their fleet to find funds for the ships is immaterial - they are playing the long game and, once the carriers are delivered, they can then play the "we can't protect these capital ships without more Frigates and Destroyers" card in order to force an increase in the RN share of the plan (the RN have been going for hundreds of years, they really can think strategically). Now don't get me wrong, I think we should have carriers, but not if it means that the balanced force will suffer as a consequence.