Defence Review

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by frankie, Jul 21, 2004.

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. It appears that the Army will reduce from 108000 to 101000 by 2008. Amongst the "reallocations" are:

    7 x Challenger 2 Sqns
    6 x AS90 Btys
    2 x HVM Bts
    4 x Inf Bns (1 x Scottish 3 x English).

    The other services are not left out though with the Navy losing 3 x Destroyers, 3 x Frigates, 2 x Subs and 3 x Mine Counter Measures vessels total manpower lost 2,850 (from 38850 to 36000) by 2008.

    The RAF reduce from 48500 to 41000 by 2008 they will lose the Jags by 06 and Coltishall will close. 6 less Nimrods and we are going to buy the C17s we are leasing (thus im sure paying twice for them). The RAF regt get a kicking and lose all their GBAD capability.
  2. X-Inf

    X-Inf War Hero Book Reviewer

    From the DWP: "The reduction in the number of regular battalions from 40 to 36 will comprise one battalion recruited in Scotland ........."

    This could easily be accomplished by disbanding the Scots Guards! (There goes my invite to Horseguards next June!)

    ........and three recruited in England." Looks like the Irish Regts are safe then.
  3. Who wants to voulanteer to train the RAF basic recruits now that the roc apes ore out of the picture?

    You think the Army is bad for PCness wait til you get there!

    Watch for the takeover of some aspects of the RAF training by the army and then the RAF trainee scuicide count will come out and the call will be

    "RAF Blackdown tradgedy"

    Just cos they've kept theirs off the journo's radar standby!
  4. X-Inf

    X-Inf War Hero Book Reviewer

    I am obviously missing somethign from CGS message so perhaps a bit of explanation can be givben.

    he says that "It would be quite wrong to think that the re-balancing in FAS is driven by money" then "...Probably the most demanding is the need to reduce our manpower liability from the current Army trained establishment of 108,500, down to a target of around 102,000 ...." "This means that the current trained Army strength will remain at broadly its current funded (my bold)level of 103,500 before reducing to the new target liability.

    From what I can see he is saying that even now, the establishment is 'X' but we are funded for 'Y' moving to 'Z' by 2008. To my mind that is purely about money.

    Secondly - if the whole paper has been about putting in place an army ready " make adjustments to the current Order of Battle in order to get the Army right for the future" is followed by the explanation from ECAB that "Whilst it was clear that no battalions of the Foot Guards or the Parachute Regiment would be taken against the criteria, the Board also concluded that there were additional specific operational, organisational and state ceremonial reasons not to reduce these battalions." Where I am at a bit of a loss is how, with the diminishing size of the infantry, can we afford the luxury of the Household Division purely for state ceremonial rweasons? What has standing outside Buck House (& elsewhere) in bright red tunics got to do with soldiering? It is more to do with tourism. The Paras and special operational reasons I can accept but, taking this sentence in context what organisational reasons are there for retaining the Guards?

    If we are going to have painful restructuring then for goodness sake make it sensible and believable.

    There are a lot of other points in this but I think I have had enough for just now.
  5. well, what a nightmare! all change again!
  6. Bearing in mind the fact that the Army Board is full of Guards and Paras, and that they have a formidable OB network, is it not surprising that

    "it was clear that no battalions of the Foot Guards or the Parachute Regiment would be taken against the criteria, the Board also concluded that there were additional specific operational, organisational and state ceremonial reasons not to reduce these battalions"

    i agree that it is more to do with tourism and keeping the army in the public eye, (as well as the protecting of those regts by their own).
  7. From a RAF point of view..........The Jaguar attack aircraft has had a lot of money spent on it over the previous few years upgrading it's systems to modernise it's role. This upgrade has been one of the few projects which has happened on-time and without cost over-run.

    Unfortunaly, Eurofighter will come into service fully soon and replace the Jag in it's current role.

    I'm soooooo glad that the money that has been spent recently on the Jag hasn't been a waste! :roll:

    Navy..............The Duke Class ships due to be withdrawn from service (Norfolk, etc) are nearly BRAND NEW!!!!!!!!

    What the fcuk is going on!
  8. woopert

    woopert LE Moderator

    From the BBC website:

    Of particular interest may be the following quote taken from that piece:

    There's not much more to add than that really, sums it all up quite well.
  9. look inside your in-tray folks, there could be a big Brown letter on its way (natural wastage) without the redundancies costs :roll:
  10. Yet another dodgy dossier from the old slopey shouldered pultrhoon himself..........when it all goes wrong we'll hear him bleating.
    what I can say Tony it weren't me!Cnut! :x
  11. Oh, all right then - just tell all your mates that they are safe and then don't point the finger at anyone will you. What really grips my sh1t is the way they have left the axe hanging over the 3 divisions of infantry - if they have already made their minds up what is the point of 3 months of consultation, just bl00dy tell us. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
  12. chimera

    chimera LE Moderator

    I suppose that unless you are in the infantry the Army does OK out of this. Manpower enhancements to some Arms/Services etc. The best bit though is the RAF Regt losing GBAD (and I'm NOT a gunner).

    Veterans on this site will no doubt recall all of those threads in which the RockApes were telling us how wonderful they were. OH dear what a shame, never mind. Their total demise is now little but a formality in the next 'Cost Saving Exercise' sorry Defence Review.

    By the way - anyone see any mention of Trident in the Review?? mmmm thought not.
  13. Just listened to Adam Ingram on the BBC news and what a load of arrse he spouted. He spouted the party line and dare anyone contradict the glorious leader and his vision.

    We, ladies and gents have been shafted good and proper. No amount of political pig swill can hide this. We have serious gaps until this "new hardware" comes into service and to top it all, the Infantry are struggling to cope with all of the glorious leaders jaunts and what does BUFFoon do? Cut some more of them! Now that makes sense.

    Now nowhere in there did I read about how that affects the Defence Medical Services (apart from 1 sentence, sorry a few words). We are overstretched to ridiculous proportions and now that the RAF are looking at getting rid of 8,500 personnell. Who looks favourite to get the chop? The Med branches who only support us (Army) and the Navy.

    2 and half years to go and I, for the first time in my career, can't wait to leave. Well done glorious leader, you have achieved what conservative governments couldn't do :evil:
  14. The really arse thing is despite all our moaning and feelings of betrayl we will continue to be the only thing this country can be proud of and the f'in civ pop's will think all is rosy because of our supposed increse in budget and our new toys. The fact that Fres to name but one is years away and is bound to be a cluster means f'all to them.

    Does this mean a return of manning control points to help reduce numbers quickly and stiff people out of redunency payouts ??? :evil: :evil: :evil: