Gen. Richards @ RUSI: HMAF Cant Go on as Jack of All Trades

#2
Trident? Pushed through without debate and funded entirely from within Defence Budget, even though it acts as strategic deterrent and can never truly be regarded as independent.
 
#3
In many ways, Gen Richards is simply echoing Lewis Page's message in Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs - without the venom of singling out criticism and blame.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#4
A good article. The General is interested in the long term good of the country and is suggesting some strategic thinking to get there.

Putting my cynic head on the General is talking to an audience of one: G Brown (an idiot) who is going to be thinking roughly along the following lines:

1. General, I despise you so I don't care what you do with your toys as long as it does not cost me votes.

2. Question: Will any of your proposals gain me votes?

3. Question: Will any of your proposals loose me votes?

Unfortunately the answer to 2 is no and 3. is yes. Brown knows that members of the Armed Forces will probably not vote for him there is no gain in having a larger Armed Forces. However cutting big capital defence projects being done by unionized labour in marginals seats will cost votes that matter.
 
#5
Personally I'd bin CVF. It's only continuing because it's getting built near Brown's constituency. The simple fact is we'll never have enough F35's to give it a proper air wing except for the occassional big exercise, we won;t have enough matelots to man it, escorts to protect it or RFAs to supply it. Frankly, getting it is going to make us look a bigger joke than not getting it.

I'd also be tempted to bin Trident, although I suspect this will happen anyway if Scotland goes independent.

Cash saved from those 2 should go into more transport aircraft and helicopters to support the Army in the field.
 
#6
Armies can't win ideological wars. Maybe we should stop trying to liberate far flung countries from their oppressors - the residents can't be arrsed to do it for themselves. We should bring our armies back to home - that'd save a few quid - £1.5Bn a year according to here:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...anistan+rises+50+per+cent+to+4.5bn/article.do

The money saved could then be used to rebuild HM Forces - starting with th Navy IMHO.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#7
TopBadger said:
Armies can't win ideological wars. Maybe we should stop trying to liberate far flung countries from their oppressors - the residents can't be arrsed to do it for themselves. We should bring our armies back to home - that'd save a few quid - £1.5Bn a year according to here:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...anistan+rises+50+per+cent+to+4.5bn/article.do

The money saved could then be used to rebuild HM Forces - starting with th Navy IMHO.
That would beg the question what you want to rebuild them for?
 
#8
BuggerAll said:
TopBadger said:
Armies can't win ideological wars. Maybe we should stop trying to liberate far flung countries from their oppressors - the residents can't be arrsed to do it for themselves. We should bring our armies back to home - that'd save a few quid - £1.5Bn a year according to here:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...anistan+rises+50+per+cent+to+4.5bn/article.do

The money saved could then be used to rebuild HM Forces - starting with th Navy IMHO.
That would beg the question what you want to rebuild them for?
Defence in conventional war - easy eh?
 
#9
TopBadger said:
Armies can't win ideological wars. Maybe we should stop trying to liberate far flung countries from their oppressors - the residents can't be arrsed to do it for themselves. We should bring our armies back to home - that'd save a few quid - £1.5Bn a year according to here:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...anistan+rises+50+per+cent+to+4.5bn/article.do

The money saved could then be used to rebuild HM Forces - starting with th Navy IMHO.
This is inherently false, of course armies can win ideological wars, we destroyed the ideologies of Nazism and fascism via military power well enough in WW2.
 
#10
From whom?

If we just want to defend the UK homeland in the current threat environment, then you could lop half or more off the defence budget right now. If we want to engage in medium to large scale warfighting at strategic distances, we'd better at least double defence spending. What we're doing now is simply unsustainable.
 
#11
Bradstyley said:
TopBadger said:
Armies can't win ideological wars. Maybe we should stop trying to liberate far flung countries from their oppressors - the residents can't be arrsed to do it for themselves. We should bring our armies back to home - that'd save a few quid - £1.5Bn a year according to here:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...anistan+rises+50+per+cent+to+4.5bn/article.do

The money saved could then be used to rebuild HM Forces - starting with th Navy IMHO.
This is inherently false, of course armies can win ideological wars, we destroyed the ideologies of Nazism and fascism via military power well enough in WW2.
Really? So how do you explain the BNP? Those ideologies are still alive and kicking.
 
#12
nigegilb said:
Trident? Pushed through without debate and funded entirely from within Defence Budget, even though it acts as strategic deterrent and can never truly be regarded as independent.
No, No, No and No.

Doesn't anyone learn from current affairs?
We as a country are on our way to being a tinpot banana republic, and if we give up our nukes we will only be a 2nd or 3rd tier tinpot banana republic.
Look at North Korea & Iran. Would we honestly even give a rat's arrse if they didn't threaten having nukes?

By giving up nukes, we would be giving India and Pakistan more justification for permanent seats on the Security Council over us.

Anyway, even this though this sounds flippant, I would not feel happy about the french being the only nuclear power in europe, just on point of principle let alone logic.
 
#13
AndyPipkin said:
From whom?

If we just want to defend the UK homeland in the current threat environment, then you could lop half or more off the defence budget right now. If we want to engage in medium to large scale warfighting at strategic distances, we'd better at least double defence spending. What we're doing now is simply unsustainable.
From agressors man! Spanish or Argies trying to nick back islands we won fair and square years ago. Defense of shipping against pirates, or our waters against smugglers. To against a resurgent Russian bear or N.Korea or China, or whoever.

But I don't see how spending £1.5bn a year in Afgan defends ourselves from UK nationals with religious grudges and lots of fertiliser. In fact it probably just gets them more wound up.
 
#14
TopBadger said:
AndyPipkin said:
From whom?

If we just want to defend the UK homeland in the current threat environment, then you could lop half or more off the defence budget right now. If we want to engage in medium to large scale warfighting at strategic distances, we'd better at least double defence spending. What we're doing now is simply unsustainable.
From agressors man! Spanish or Argies trying to nick back islands we won fair and square years ago. Defense of shipping against pirates, or our waters against smugglers. To against a resurgent Russian bear or N.Korea or China, or whoever.

But I don't see how spending £1.5bn a year in Afgan defends ourselves from UK nationals with religious grudges and lots of fertiliser. In fact it probably just gets them more wound up.
To do this won't we have to fight a small or medium war - at strategic distances, just as Andy says?

Another thing, I may be wrong but isn't the Afghan war funded from a war chest rather than the defence budget. Now unless you want to do away with said fund to build up the armed forces, giving up in Afghanistan is not going to make a difference to Defence funding.
 
#15
Whet said:
To do this won't we have to fight a small or medium war - at strategic distances, just as Andy says?

Another thing, I may be wrong but isn't the Afghan war funded from a war chest rather than the defence budget. Now unless you want to do away with said fund to build up the armed forces, giving up in Afghanistan is not going to make a difference to Defence funding.
Yes. I agree we need to be able to fight small/medium wars at a distance.

I don't know about the funding either, i hope someone on here will.

But in summary my point is that ALL these things have to be paid for, and to cut cash we should stop spending £1.5bn a year fighting wars that we can gain nothing from and spend that money on developing capability (Trident / CVF / whatever) instead.
 
#16
I suggest that the focus should be on the infantry (especially paras). The main investments should be in people, in education and training. As for the 'hardware' then first of all money should be spent on armoured battle machines, helicopters, transport aviation (it could be used for peacefull and humanitarian purposes as well), bttlefield millise systems.
 
#17
KGB_resident said:
I suggest that the focus should be on the infantry (especially paras). The main investments should be in people, in education and training. As for the 'hardware' then first of all money should be spent on armoured battle machines, helicopters, transport aviation (it could be used for peacefull and humanitarian purposes as well), bttlefield millise systems.
Sergey,
Clearly a wah - unless you think that we will be jumping in en masse any day soon.
whf
 
#18
KGB_resident said:
I suggest that the focus should be on the infantry (especially paras).
Why paras, KGB_resident?

Do you have a thing for men with tashes dropping into your bedroom under a silk blanket?
 
#19
whitecity said:
KGB_resident said:
I suggest that the focus should be on the infantry (especially paras).
Why paras, KGB_resident?

Do you have a thing for men with tashes dropping into your bedroom under a silk blanket?
The paratroops is the best part of Russian army. They are ready to act immediately and are well trained. During all conflicts (in Chechnya, in Georgia) paras were the main battle force.

I believe that British paratroops would be very effective in many situations in conflicts of different type. Developed transport aviation would make paras even more effective. As for the infantry then, I believe it is a traditionally strong point of British military. So it would be logical to support something that you are strong in. And of course British soldiers should be supplied with armoured battle machines, missile systems (including RPG). Ther should be enough helicopters and so on.

It is my vision. It could be (and maybe should be) mocked and ignored. But it doesn't matter.
 
#20
whitecity said:
In many ways, Gen Richards is simply echoing Lewis Page's message in Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs - without the venom of singling out criticism and blame.
Haven't you missed out 'and Page's wild inaccuracies, petty prejudices and general crapness of argument' after 'blame', there?
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads