Ex-forces chief Lord Guthrie warns over defence funds

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Mar 10, 2010.

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. Ex-forces chief Lord Guthrie warns over defence funds

    Lord Guthrie called for a cut in the number of Typhoon fighters ordered
    Ministers will have to cut back all but the most essential defence projects to meet a funding shortfall, a former head of the armed forces has warned.
    General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank told the Centre for Policy Studies that a stronger Army was the priority.
    He called for plans to build two new aircraft carriers to scrapped, a cut in the RAF order for Typhoon jets, and the scaling back of the nuclear deterrent.
    His comments came ahead of a strategic defence review after the election.
    In a speech, Lord Guthrie also called for the Ministry of Defence's "bloated" bureaucracy to be radically reduced and suggested it was "not fit for purpose".
  2. Nurses! Nurse!
  3. So, its come to this. The politicians have got us at each others throats, doing their work for them.
  4. Without any Service of party political bias, I think that during his brief interview on the wireless this morning, he spoke more sense than I have heard politicians speak - on any subject - for years!
  5. What, by blithely talking about surrendering capability (unless it's boots on the ground or in vehicles) instead of retaining or replacing it? Of course "...you cannot magic helicopters out of mid-air; you cannot magic armoured vehicles quickly" but you can obtain them a damn sight quicker than long-lead items like replacement aircraft carriers and their escorts.

    Or perhaps Guthrie's crystal ball tells him that our troops and aircraft will be welcomed with open arms wherever they need to fight over the next 5-40 years? Taking our commitments into account, the Defence budget has been underfunded for years and this will not help it. You do not cancel your fire insurance premiums just because you've suffered a spate of burglaries.
  6. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    Disappointing that an ex-CDS demonstrates that he never understood the basics of how the deterrent works. Sadly, focussed on today's problems with no forward thinking about tomorrow's. Typical dim Pongo.
  7. Really? - sounded like Drivel to me.

    The process is - proper SDR, fully fund it, impliment it. And, we can afford all of the projects he was going to axe. The Government just chooses to spend the money on Quangos instead.

    Arbiterily surrendering capability, because the Politicos have made us fight each other, is not the way ahead.
  8. Given that the political intent is to declare victory in Afghan and bug out asap, the Army's likely future is to subsequently shrivel from its current artificially pumped-up state down to a barrack-bound home defence force. In those circumstances, I'm rather keen to see the carriers and Trident retained....
  9. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    Spot on 4(T). Plus if the army is greatly reduced we won't have to keep a chunk of it expensively parked in Germany. After all, who needs soldiers when they haven't got a war? The EU is going to take over our foreign policy anyway, and they can use the Germans and the French Foreign Legion to do their dirty work.
  10. One would have hoped that his time as CDS would have pared down his parochial view of defence, obviously not.

    So if his dream comes true, and in some far flung land his larger army are suffering because they have no air support, it's to far for the RAF and its Friday anyway, there is no aircraft carrier, therefore no naval air support, they can take some comfort in the fact that it was one of their own that dropped them in the brown and smelly.
  11. I'm tired of hearing that we "can on longer afford" this or that capability in the field of Defence. We can afford whatever we decide to spend our Tax receipts on. Unfortunately we have so debased ourselves over the past 50 or so years that it is now almost unthinkable to consider reducing the vast amounts of money squandered on Welfare, Quangos, Government bureaucracy and the NHS. You'll note that I said "wasted" and not spent. I know we need these things but I also know that spending on them has been out of control for years, I believe it has been reliably calculated that in the past 13 years about 1 trillion pounds has been spent by the Govt. on these and other Socialist totems and for which there has been no appreciable return or benefit.
    Think about that, ONE TRILLION POUNDS!!!, pi**ed up against the wall without so much as the blink of an eye, and yet we're quibbling about an increase in our National Insurance Policy (the Defence Budget) which currenlty absorbs a measly £38 billion per annum or thereabouts!
    It'a a matter of priorities, plain and simple. There are massive savings to be made right across Govt. and I don't see why the Defence budget, which has been effectively cut since 1997, should suffer any further reductions if we are serious about the security of our country and our place in the world.
  12. name a war where the army wasn't the forfront of the operations,
    yes there is always need for support, falklands wouldnt of happened for instance,
    but he is right the army need to get a bigger prostion at the moment and near future
    and since the budget aint getting any bigger, to help this cuts need to be taken else where.
    how many typhoons do we need for what we currently do at the moment? and then take into account home defence as well.
    unless you want married quaters to go etc to help penny saving ??
    i just think people need to see near picture first then look at the bigger picture with some glacing thoughts,

    any way we euro/USA focused in our defence planning now, so learn french or get used to BDU
  13. I also think that Guthrie is doing the governments job for them and it will come down to relying [that's a laugh!] on the French and other EU nations to supply 'Heavy' assets such as Carriers in unknown[but given human nature] future conflicts. This really must be resisted; if we don't learn the lessons of history and demographics then the nation will end up as an irrelevance and shall always be regarded by our future generations as the shameful period when Great Britain was subsumed as a vassal of a monolith that is Europe.
    What was the point of successive generations of Britons fighting for our freedoms only to see them given away so cheaply?
  14. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    Not long now and you will all wake up to discover that the whole point of the Lisbon Treaty was to make ALL the nations of the EU an irrelevance. There is no legal way back. If you live (say) in Exeter you will be living in the South West England region of the EU.
  15. No one needs to, you just named one yourself. The Falklands was a naval conflict with the Army in support.
    WWII - the Army popped over the Channel where they were very quickly defeated. The next four years were a naval and air war with the Army involved in a few supporting battles on the periphery.

    And how is this Army of yours going to get to and provide for the fight, walk or swim, and then throw rocks?

    So you don't want CAS, then? As the only land border we have is with Ireland, what the toss is the Army going to do for home defence? Home defence is primarily provided by the RAF - using those Typhoons.

    Guthrie's speech is nothing but short-sighted, partisan, self-serving, populist drivel. It's got bugger all to do with defence.