DEFENCE ITEMS FOR TORY MANIFESTO

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#1
Having seen the last Tory manifesto, and particularly the defence part (barely 3 pages) I have the following suggestions, I will write to the Tory think tank concerned fairly soon

Dear Tory think tank,

As a service man I was disappointed to see that in your last election manifesto (http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/manifesto-uk-2005.pdf) you covered defence in barely three pages and within that, had no substance whatsoever. As you seem to demonstrate else where in the manifesto firm plans as well as commitment, I would encourage you to consider speaking with some more of the British armed forces and putting some simple points down.

It might be naive of me but I consider firm plans rather than wishy washy statements to be exactly what the Soldiers, newspapers, public and your own MP's are asking for. Therefore, please demonstrate your commitment to the military by putting down some points that you are considering. Whilst I recognise that putting actual points down makes them policy, I am sure you can see from the following compiled list that there are many items which you have already decided to address and also items which you know Labour has not addressed in over ten years.

For your interest, I have drafted a list of items that would be appreciated for inclusion and for your better understanding, in addition there are some notes for your better understanding at this stage:

1. Reform at the MOD. The current practice of running the MOD along business lines whilst apparently bringing efficiency appears to those outside as failing the troops. Whilst reform can create uncertainty, the present organisation is not working.

2. Amalgamate the RAF and RN. They are both in the force projection game and both seem to need the same things (for example aircraft, albeit different versions of the same) as the other whilst not merging their requirements for economies of scale. They both work to support the army and both will work better as a combined force.

3. Amalgamate the RM with the Army. The traditional split is now no longer required due to the Army now training on ships and the RM no longer walking on water. The RM can keep its traditional role and budget etc as part of the regimental system of the Army. This exercise simply reduces the duplication of higher ranks roles.

4. Urgent Operational Requirements. Whilst the army has received many many good things via the UOR system it is a pity that (a) these were not able to be ordered before the Operation or (b) available for training prior to the operation. Current supply of specialist equipment means that they are all in theatre rather than in supply at training locations leading to troops using equipment that they are unused to. Whilst something is always better than nothing, budgets should allow for training purchases to be included in UOR so whilst the first of the order goes to theatre, the end of the order goes to training locations. Rather than having it as a separate order without the UOR tag.

5. Training. The current draft of training locations whilst excellent could be improved with the benefit of another FIBUA desert based location allowing for build up packages for Iraq, likewise, a package location simulating Afghanistan would be welcome.

6. Forces Housing. A cash loan administered to all incumbents to allow them to purchase / have fitted new equipment when moving into a newly allocated property. This will allow service families to fix their own problems rather than waiting for contracted-contractors for whom the best thing is to do nothing. Condemned buildings should be replaced and forces locations merged to allow for economies of scale.

7. Recruitment and Retention. On top of the queens shilling a sign up bonus paid at the end of training and a significant three yearly bonus based on average earnings.

8. Medical Facilities. A reversal of the previous decision to move to NHS facilities and the setting up of a military hospital. The military hospital to be part private and to be used by service personal first, private facilities second. The second should manage to pay for the first.

9. Protection in the field. A fleet of Armoured vehicles to be constructed for non-teeth arm forces (e.g. logistics etc) to be used in the specific theatre required when soft skinned vehicles need to be withdrawn. This will all a ready reserve of suitable vehicles having to no longer rely on UOR to solve the problem after too many lives have been lost.

10. A review of the UOR process and why it is necessary and what is stopping the MOD from thinking a-head. The perception that the American's have everything they need bar training is about right. Why must the UK lag behind? The blame for this lies at the MOD, the solution lies with you.

With kind regards,

Mr Happy
Now I know some of this is in the works, some probably exists and some is impossible.

So what should I chuck, what would you add, what can I take change to make it better?
 
#2
I would trim out 2 and 3 Mr Happy if you want them to actually read further, the Tories are NOT going to pick a fight with the RN & RAF PR machines, unless you actually work for New Liebour.....

Gassing all of the weasels in the MoD & CoC is enough to be keeping everyone busy for a few years
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#3
Like I said, some are impossible. Those two items are my personal agenda for when I make CDS. I popped them it because its important to make notes - I read that somewhere, but I can't remember where as I didn't write it down...

Where's my Sherry?
 
#4
Greater and dedicated CAS capability within the RAF, along the lines of the A10, to provide immediate and heavy hitting air support to the lads.
 
#5
Root and branch review of procurement and introduction of a "project unworkable - project cancelled" mentality.
 
#6
The entire Defence budget should be placed outside of the usual HMG financial cycle, changing the accounting time frame on all Defence budgets to something much more realistic, perhaps 5 year terms helping prevent short termist pressures.

Creating a basic level of indigenous small arms and ammo companies manufacturing under license etc. indirectly protected by say 30 year supply contracts and based in tax free development areas. If rubbish like Westlands can be protected why not basics like machine guns, rifles and ammo?

And maybe doing something far sighted like commissioning say 50 type 45 Destroyer Hulls (minus all innards as they are always out of date), having them wrapped in plastic or whatever and stashed for a major future emergency when the latest whatever can be installed – just think of the Politically beneficial ship yard and engineering votes!

The greatest free market economy in the World – the US does not allow economic ideology to undermine it is Defence manufacturing capacity, nor does anybody else, why should we – just how many times have the Belgium’s refused to sell us ammo? Who else are we going to end up signing a 'just in time' contract with, Iran?
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#7
CarpeDiem said:
Greater and dedicated CAS capability within the RAF, along the lines of the A10, to provide immediate and heavy hitting air support to the lads.
been a RAF Staff Requirement since about 1995.....FOAS?.....COBAS?....anyway, BAeS ( groan ) have been pushing their vapour-ware solution to this which naturally meets ALL MoD's possible present and future needs ( a bit like A400M .....HUH!! ) since I left Stuart House many moons ago.

Ask about in P-Prune.
 
#8
I have to ask why? The RAF and RN do totally different jobs, which need diferent train sets with different functions. Some of the work that the RAF and RN aren't involved in right now, may be needed in the future, such as UK Air Defense, or Martime strike, or long range martime patrolling.

As an aside the Canucks tried a single One service fits all cap a few years back. They gave up because it didn't work.
 
#9
look at the whole project management procument shambles
learn the lessons bin the incompetant
ammo shooty things made in uk
everything else open competition
westlands to be burned to the ground
 
#10
Having just watched 'future weapons' on Sky Discovery (yeah I know how sad!!!! :oops: ) I thought this might be quite a good buy

http://www.fmv.se/WmTemplates/Page.aspx?id=1373

Its the new swedish artillery system, fully automated, crew of 3, drive up and 'in action' in 30 secs.... :wink:
 
#11
State owned munitions production.
Defence planning to look further than a week on Tuesday, that means ships for the Navy and aircraft for the RAF.
Fully stocked armouries, with spare weapons and ammunition of all types, stop closing CAD's and actually keep them stocked.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#13
Kitmarlowe said:
I have to ask why? The RAF and RN do totally different jobs, which need diferent train sets with different functions. Some of the work that the RAF and RN aren't involved in right now, may be needed in the future, such as UK Air Defense, or Martime strike, or long range martime patrolling.

As an aside the Canucks tried a single One service fits all cap a few years back. They gave up because it didn't work.
We should chat elsewhere really but I quite like the merger of the two because they both use heli and fast jet. They both ferry troops. These days both their roles is defence of the UK and patroling or moving troops about and lastly their roles are for ground support in AFG and IRAQ. Whilst I know they do it with different kit, at a higher level, the two operate at such a level that it just makes sense (to me) to push them together so we get a (even better) combined arms thing..

Lastly, the RAF won't complain because they get a much better mess kit and likewise the RN matelots will get rid of those embarrasing bell bottom things.. In a perfect world.
 
#14
You're thinking too small scale... forget merging the RAF and RN - we're all going to be assimilated into the EU Defence Agency in time :roll:

it'll be purple jumpsuits for the lot of us....
 
#15
Mr Happy said:
Kitmarlowe said:
I have to ask why? The RAF and RN do totally different jobs, which need diferent train sets with different functions. Some of the work that the RAF and RN aren't involved in right now, may be needed in the future, such as UK Air Defense, or Martime strike, or long range martime patrolling.

As an aside the Canucks tried a single One service fits all cap a few years back. They gave up because it didn't work.
We should chat elsewhere really but I quite like the merger of the two because they both use heli and fast jet. They both ferry troops. These days both their roles is defence of the UK and patroling or moving troops about and lastly their roles are for ground support in AFG and IRAQ. Whilst I know they do it with different kit, at a higher level, the two operate at such a level that it just makes sense (to me) to push them together so we get a (even better) combined arms thing..

Lastly, the RAF won't complain because they get a much better mess kit and likewise the RN matelots will get rid of those embarrasing bell bottom things.. In a perfect world.
My comeback is the RAF's main task is to get airframes into the sky, regardless of the purpose of that airframe. Everything in the RAF is devolved to get that handlebar moustached "God of the Air" into the air from a nice clean base that's still there when he comes back. Whihc is one of the reasons why I like the RAF, only the Officers go into harm's way...The RN's main task is to get boat shaped ship things into the water regardless of the role that floaty thing is going to do. Flying things is a relatively speaking minor role for the RN.

Combining the two would have interesting effects on the two services......
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top