Frontline troops must now be a spending priority

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by hackle, Jul 4, 2009.

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. Interesting dit from the Daily Telegraph:

  2. If any politician thinks defence can keep being cut back then they're as bad as the likes of Chamberlain.

    I have been of the firm opinion for several years now that we cannot defend this country. To always rely of allies is suicidal.

    Whoops! Where did that nice safety blanket go?
  3. Seemed to work for Maggie.
  4. NHS is outsourcing lots of services within 2 years so maybe proper bean counters can check the contract bids more closely to get VFM
  5. Indeed look what outsourcing has done to the Forces. Inflated prices while lowering efficiency and the removal of power from Stn CO's.

    Defence Estates, MHS, Housing, DII, DFTS etc all receiving blank cheques with public money.
  6. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    The UK is broken. Defence, like the rest of the country is in freefall. So many are so far removed from any sense of threat they whinge constantly about such tosh as global warming, or is it climate change this week?

    As a nation, distance not-with-standing, we cannot stand up to piss poor countries such as North Korea!!!

    Look at how our European partners supported us recently against Irans bullshit!! Ran for the fcuking hills with their tails between their legs, as usual!!! Still the dole will pay out each week......

    I dispair I really do.
  7. Seconded. :evil: :x
  8. Dont worry, Hyper Inflation will soon wipe out of the value of all that debt!

    It might take out everyone's savings as well, but it serves you right for bothering to do some work and not being part of Zanu-Lab's client state!

    From The Times:

    The BOE is printing money that is immediately being spent by the government on Schools/Hospitals/"Jobseekers Allowance".
  9. From The Times
    July 4, 2009
    The cost of war

    Money is scarce but there is no excuse for conducting a battle with inadequate equipment. The nobility of the troops demands more than this

    The British Army has always shown that the virtue of nobility is not confined to the officer class. Lieutenant-Colonel Rupert Thorneloe and Trooper Joshua Hammond died the death of heroes, in the service of their country. It would be naive to suppose that any conflict, especially one with such a tenacious enemy as the Taleban, could be conducted without casualties. The sacrifices made by these two young men, and by their many colleagues before them, are the tragic concomitant of a military commitment that, in the view of this newspaper, is in a just cause.

    That said, these deaths cannot simply be ascribed to doomed heroism. It is now clear that the Taleban are directly exploiting the weakness of the Viking, the Army’s favoured personnel carrier. Huge roadside bombs, sometimes two placed together, can rip through the weak underbelly of the Viking. When the carrier was first sent to Afghanistan in 2006, its versatility and manoeuvrability made it a great addition to the armoury of the troops. But the increased strength of Taleban bombing exposed a hitherto concealed weakness. The Viking cannot bear sufficient armour to protect its occupants
    More on the link
  10. Interesting that the Viking is now the next Snatch. When will journalists realise that there is not a vehicle on the planet that will protect soldiers all the time. It is also interesting that EFP is just not mentioned in the news.
  11. Interesting. We (BAFF) declined multiple requests on Friday for comment about Viking, just as we have previously declined to comment specifically about Snatch - even though the BAFF Executive Chairman is a qualified Snatch driver "Balkans only"! We do say that the operational chain of command should get the equipment they say is needed.
  12. I agree entirely.
  13. Must it?

    From the Times, 28 June

    Sunday Times, today:

    That tw@t cares only marginally more about the defence of this country, than he does about what the future holds for the Afghan people, about whom he couldn't give a flying tuppenny feck.

    We're in there to sustain the Special (Ha!) Relationship with Unca Sam, because it allows gunmint to avoid having to contemplate paying for things like strategic lift, and a properly sized Navy, Army and Air Force.

    If you think you have been shafted already, you need to brace yourselves: you guys and gals are about to find yourselves being asked to manage with even less than you currently have available.

    And it won't matter who gets in next time there's an election:

  14. All politicians are cunts.

    It's about time we had a military coup.
  15. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Someone mentioned EFP earlier. I don't think that EFP are a problem in Afgh - at the moment. There is simply so much explosive - both HME and military - available that the Taliban can make bigger and bigger IEDs as the armour of vehicles increases. I've seen an ISAF (naming no Nation here) LAV - weighing many tonnes - thrown fifty metres; if the targets are bigger, they make bombs bigger. I presume they don't like to - it's presumably better for them to have 6 small bombs to deny an area than one big one which can be found more easily - but if it kills Westerners..........