Can we live with this

Could we live with General Dannatt's defence proposals?

  • Yes

    Votes: 34 40.5%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 13 15.5%
  • No

    Votes: 37 44.0%

  • Total voters
    84

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
A blueprint for defence that saves money and keeps Britain secure - Telegraph

This is Gen Dannatt's view of the whole defence piece in today's Telegraph around which he claims there is a growing consensus. It seems a pretty pragmatic approach and, whilst no-one's going to be over the moon at some of the proposed measures, it does seem to strike a balance between discharging our responsibilities in Afghanistan and planning for the future. Clearly it is a compromise, can we live with it?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
I'd be interested to know what the 'no's' take issue with.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
Only one question. What if the Argentines decide that the oil around the FI is reason enough to kick off about "las islas Malvinas" again? I would have thought that an operational carrier or two would be essential.
 
#4
Only one question. What if the Argentines decide that the oil around the FI is reason enough to kick off about "las islas Malvinas" again? I would have thought that an operational carrier or two would be essential.
Well, I'm guessing at that point the mothballed carrier is de-mothballed... though i've no idea how long that would take...

I think the General is loving the fact that this SDSR is going on whilst a large ground operation is underway... but my view as a soldier is that if anything we should pull out of Afghan PDQ, and bolster the Navy with the money saved. The RAF should get split between FAA and AAC.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
Well, I'm guessing at that point the mothballed carrier is de-mothballed... though i've no idea how long that would take...
I'm guessing a lot longer than it took for the Task Force to be assembled the last time around.
 
#6
Yup, agree with most of that but just have a couple of thoughts.

So on the air side he wants us to be dependent on the Typhoon ??, fair enough but three Squadrons to defend the UK is stretching things a bit. But ditching an AAR capability is madness. How will we get air power to the Falklands if needs be, or even defend the UK without it. AAR is a force multiplier. I'm an ex crab but I can see the sense in ditching Harrier and most of the GR4's, most are approaching 25-30 years old and are very tired. But to do away with AAR is silly. Agree with the bit about the Navy and I reckon SH should be transferred to the Army, makes sense for it be all under the one umbrella. We are an Island nation, if it comes to a purely defensive role surely sea and air power will be called upon before land and should be the priority ??

Damn .. now I have to go and get a shower to get that sentence about transferring SH to the Army off me.
 
#7
Yup, agree with most of that but just have a couple of thoughts.

...................But ditching an AAR capability is madness. How will we get air power to the Falklands if needs be, or even defend the UK without it. AAR is a force multiplier........................

Damn .. now I have to go and get a shower to get that sentence about transferring SH to the Army off me.
He didn't say ditch it altogether.

This will significantly reduce our need for air-to-air refuelling, enabling the outrageously expensive contract (£10.5 billion for 14 tanker aircraft) to be torn up in favour of an affordable, off-the-shelf replacement.
 
#9
I agree on bringing a very large chunk of BFG back to the UK
I agree on the ludicrous AAR PFI money pit, not binning AAR but binning the hugely expensive PFI
I even reluctantly agree on putting half of heavy armour and artillery into storage (not disposed of)
The RAF's Tornado's are being progresively replaced by Typhoon anyway, not sure geting tid of the Harier fleet is a good idea
He is just plain wrong about CVF but that is being argued elsewhere
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
True, but the OP asked for views on Dannatts proposals (I don't know if he's kite flying for Fox).

To my mind there are a number of real threats that have been put on the back burner.

a) FI - the Argentines will kick off again if they see that there's any regional political benefit, any economic benefit, or any perceived weakness on HMG's part.

b) DPRK. They are politically unstable, an aspiring nuclear power, and an economic basket case. Technically, we (and the rest of the UN) are still at war with them.

c) PRC. Mainly cyber, however, their growing need for raw materials wouldn't preclude them striking north to grab them, or using proxies in Africa to do the same.

d) Afghan is on-going and we're committed.
 
#11
"This will significantly reduce our need for air-to-air refuelling, enabling the outrageously expensive contract (£10.5 billion for 14 tanker aircraft) to be torn up in favour of an affordable, off-the-shelf replacement. "

Errrr, try blaming HM Treasury who shafted MoD and the RAF by insisting on an overprice PFI contract or no Tankers.

Shame that Mr.Dannett learnt **** all about air power
 
#12
The more Dannatt goes on, the more he's beginning to sound like the archtypical Colonel Blimp.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
"This will significantly reduce our need for air-to-air refuelling, enabling the outrageously expensive contract (£10.5 billion for 14 tanker aircraft) to be torn up in favour of an affordable, off-the-shelf replacement. "

Errrr, try blaming HM Treasury who shafted MoD and the RAF by insisting on an overprice PFI contract or no Tankers.

Shame that Mr.Dannett learnt **** all about air power
Which is odd given his quals.
 
#14
The QEC (CVF is sooo 2008 dah-lings) cannot be afforded. Unless you are prepared to give up some other, genuine, core capability that is truely essential. We have done without a proper carrier capability for quite a few years now and I have yet to be persuaded that QEC is anything other than the Navy's "Eurofighter for the Twenty Teens".

If you want to have carriers, fine but be aware that means having something else of possibly more pertinence going away. Moreover, even if you can square the CAPEX with a spurious justification - there still remains the difficult question of OPEX.
 
#15
The QEC (CVF is sooo 2008 dah-lings) cannot be afforded. Unless you are prepared to give up some other, genuine, core capability that is truely essential. We have done without a proper carrier capability for quite a few years now and I have yet to be persuaded that QEC is anything other than the Navy's "Eurofighter for the Twenty Teens".

If you want to have carriers, fine but be aware that means having something else of possibly more pertinence going away. Moreover, even if you can square the CAPEX with a spurious justification - there still remains the difficult question of OPEX.
Probably best kept to the other thread Cuddles, the toys are already out of the pram in that one
 
#16
Well, I'm guessing at that point the mothballed carrier is de-mothballed... though i've no idea how long that would take...
Aside from the time needed to bring the carrier out of "extended readiness" I would have thought the bigger issue would be providing trained crew? Surely the specialised skill sets required for operating fixed wing naval aviation at sea can't just be jacked up at a few months notice?
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
Only one question. What if the Argentines decide that the oil around the FI is reason enough to kick off about "las islas Malvinas" again? I would have thought that an operational carrier or two would be essential.
My thoughts exactly. The last threat to our sovereign space came in the form of the Falklands War, and we couldn't field fast jets because our carriers weren't big enough, and because of that, too many argy fast jets got away, and because of that, we lost more surface ships. That same threat to the Falklands exists today, and we need to be fit to face it, as well as other threats that may come along.

Personally, I think we should keep the carriers, keep the fast jets, get some VSTOL's in, keep the Nuclear sub deterrent, get more apaches and chinooks, and most importantly, save a fortune by getting rid of our bases in Germany. No more shipping massive amounts of men and materiel back and forth across Europe, with all those expensive German claims for damage, and all those other assorted costs. We've still got empty bases in the UK where our forces can come back to, and it makes sense.
 
#18
Only one question. What if the Argentines decide that the oil around the FI is reason enough to kick off about "las islas Malvinas" again? I would have thought that an operational carrier or two would be essential.

Didn't we build a big concrete aircraft carrier at Mount Pleasant for exactly that reason?

Admittedly, it's a bit on the slow side, but they're it's hard to sink (as the Black Buck missions to Stanley discovered) and stays at sea a loooong time...
 
#19
Probably best kept to the other thread Cuddles, the toys are already out of the pram in that one
Listen,, the Andrew hasn't got enough manpower to man its surface fleet, its submarine fleet, carry out ops in AFG with 3 Cdo Bde and man a carrier force...AND organise a Cuddles cutting out operation! So, charming naval folk, bring it.
 
#20
Aside from the time needed to bring the carrier out of "extended readiness" I would have thought the bigger issue would be providing trained crew? Surely the specialised skill sets required for operating fixed wing naval aviation at sea can't just be jacked up at a few months notice?

Correct, deck skills are a use em or lose em specialization.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top