Good news to hide the bad news?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by crabby, Oct 11, 2006.

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. Was very pleased to see introduction of tax breaks for soldiers serving abroad announced yesterday. In an article in The Times today about it it mentions that at the same time as freeing up £60-£70m for this scheme the treasury has told the MoD it HAS to cut the procurement program for type 45 destroyers AND one other major project. Have they gone for a cheap soft option to make people feel good whilst dramatically b*ggering up future operational capability in the background?

    Could someone find link from the paper please. Also is this old news about the procurement programmes?

    My bold & I have deleted the text covering the new payment as this is covered elsewhere.

    Craby - as you so rightly implied they are using good news to hide the bad. Although is cutting Type 45 such a problem? These ships are designed for point defence of naval fleets - do we still have a fleet? Do any of our current/future enemies? Can their job be covered by anything else?

    The possible axing of other programmes is much more serious however, especially FRES or the training PFI as these will have much more serious ramifications for the Army.

    Does anyone have more information of what the true picture is?
  3. From my reading of arrse the argument was that type 45 destroyers are required for the carrier project, which is dependent on JSF. Without either of those three we have no point in any of them. Yet the MoD is trying to cut one of these projects if not more.

    Were the cuts announced beforehand? I'm worried if this is old news and I'm just being a pain.
  4. Hang on... didn't the RN say the absolute minimum number of type 45's it needed was 12? That got cut down by Gordon to about 6-8.

    Now we lose two more?!
  5. Its a ****ing disgrace. Were one of the richest nations on the planet, haemorrhaging sterling from every orifice, of every project, in every department. And yet in the name of ‘cutting costs’ they will instead cannibalise vital projects of national defence.

    ****ing idiots.
  6. Absolutely no surprise with this lot..... It was too good to be true.

  7. Be realistic crabby. If they keep throwing money at the MOD for luxuries like a navy, functioning rifles and helicopters they wont have any money left for important stuff like ....

    .... public funding of political parties. (we've got a big financial hole to get Labour out of don't you know)

    .... vital research into the history of pockets LINK

    .... the worlds most expensive baseball caps LINK

    .... publicly funded bungs to trade unions who generously re-bung the Labour party (isn't this money laundering) LINK
  8. The Navy (MOD) at various stages have also said that the absolute minimum number of surface escorts has to be 40 Destroyers/Frigates, then 32, then at the last cuts err sorry re-balance the number was put at 25 escorts. Now it would seem that 23 will do.

    If in the event of a Falklands type senario happening, then there would be 4 T45's to escort the carriers/frigates & the remaining 2 to cover Ocean, Albion, Bulwark, the RFA fleet & the STUFT fleet.
  9. Honestly its going to take another unexpected (unexpected being the important part) war like the Falklands for the projects the forces desperatly need to be allowed to run their course.

    Without something like that, its just going to be continual penny pinching and project slashing, until we end up with (outdated) near nothing.
  10. But you're forgetting the multi-talented Harrier GR7 force. Each of our mighty carriers holds at least four or five of these beasts.

    They might lack the exotic weapons, such as guns, that other warplanes have but they do have state of the art radios. This would allow them to approach an attacking force of enemy aircraft and use the really foul language for which our navy is renowned in order to drive off an attack.

    Alternatively, being a ground attack aircraft, they could drop pornographic films on the enemy. Didn't this novel tactic recently drive out a naval chaplain?
  11. Dear God - is there no end to this LINK
  12. More with less Listy - I'm sure HM RN can project operational capability anywhere around the world - especially those cheap bars in Portsmouth and chartered rocks around New Zealand (was it New Zealand?).

    I'm considering offering to go to the next sandpit/hole Tony Blair decides needs a bit of redecorating as a token British Force (ie. THE brit) if they pay for me to get myself fixed and join HM forces :D

    That is assuming there's an A2 kicking around (probable), with some ammo (ummm???), some airlift capability to get me out there (looks like I'm walking), helos to transport me round (walking again), air support provided (by what?). No offence, and those serving always have my support + respect, but in a way slightly glad I'm not off to sandbags with what appears to be one fiasco after another
  13. You dont get something for nothing under this bloody govt.
  14. How can you say that.

    Prescott got Dorneywood and his babe lair in Admiralty Arch for nothing. Cherie gets her up-armoured jag and her hair done for nothing. Ewan "do you know who I am" Blair is getting his education for nothing because daddy's the PM. Even Cherie's mum got a free flight on holiday courtesy of the RAF.