Guardian: "Defence Cuts: Gurkhas And RAF Take Brunt"

#3
"Flexible", "adaptable", "uncertain future".

These are the buzz words shat out by oafs like Liam Fox to try and skim over the fact that he's got his cock so far up the collective ARRSE he can't see straight.

What a ****ing sorry state of affairs.
 
#4
"Flexible", "adaptable", "uncertain future".

These are the buzz words shat out by oafs like Liam Fox to try and skim over the fact that he's got his cock so far up the collective ARRSE he can't see straight.

What a ****ing sorry state of affairs.
Liam Fox, the politician who promised to cut 40,000 procurement jobs from an organisation with less than 8000 procurement staff. He can't count, either.
 
#6
Gurkhas priced themselves out of the market and we're not expecting the massed hordes of the Luftflotte 6 to come over the Channel any time soon.
 
#8
Also on the site and directly related:

Armed forces' top brass were fighting the wrong battle | Analysis | UK news | The Guardian

Key quote:

"What will the regular army do when its combat role in Afghanistan comes to an end in 2014? The lack of a convincing answer has left the generals vulnerable to even deeper cuts than those due to be officially announced on Thursday. "

The lack of any visible response to that question from the Regular Army means, for me, that 82,000 will only be an interim step before further cuts. And before you all get bent out of shape and frothing at the mouth in true "outraged of Tunbridge Wells" style, try answering the question. How do you convince the average taxpayer, who is suffering through redundancies, cuts, lack of pay rises, and so on that they should pay to keep a bunch of squaddies sitting round twiddling their thumbs just in case ? It's likely that Regular cuts will be balanced by increases in the Reserve so it's not as if there will be no-one available.
 
#9
As recruiting's improving I doubt we need as many Gurkha Reinforcement Companies as we did so we don't need the RGR to be as overmanned as they are. No real surprise that they're losing a few. Especially with the unforeseen (by many) circumstances of the changes in T&Cs.
 
#10
Also on the site and directly related:

Armed forces' top brass were fighting the wrong battle | Analysis | UK news | The Guardian

Key quote:

"What will the regular army do when its combat role in Afghanistan comes to an end in 2014? The lack of a convincing answer has left the generals vulnerable to even deeper cuts than those due to be officially announced on Thursday. "

The lack of any visible response to that question from the Regular Army means, for me, that 82,000 will only be an interim step before further cuts. And before you all get bent out of shape and frothing at the mouth in true "outraged of Tunbridge Wells" style, try answering the question. How do you convince the average taxpayer, who is suffering through redundancies, cuts, lack of pay rises, and so on that they should pay to keep a bunch of squaddies sitting round twiddling their thumbs just in case ? It's likely that Regular cuts will be balanced by increases in the Reserve so it's not as if there will be no-one available.
Northern Ireland
Bosnia
Kosovo
Sierra Leone
Iraq
Afghanistan
Fireman strikes
bin men strikes
ambulance men strikes
terrorist threats to airports, etc.
no fly zones (north and south of Iraq)
Libya
Falklands Islands
Fishery protection
flood support (York, BoxCastle etc)
Mountain Rescue
Winter support (only last year Army Land Rovers were ferrying midwifes and medics)

All of this should be in the publics living memory (other jobs may still be in the minds of older people).

Surely services such as teh Armed Forces, NHS and Education (to name but a few) should be having to give reasons for their existance? If so we might need a radical rethink onthe quals required to be in government.
 
#11
Northern Ireland - Police action, no need for large standing full on forces to support
Bosnia - optional war
Kosovo - optional war
Sierra Leone - optional war
Iraq - optional war
Afghanistan - optional war
Fireman strikes - Civil support - no need for large standing full on forces to support
bin men strikes - Civil support - no need for large standing full on forces to support
ambulance men strikes - Civil support - no need for large standing full on forces to support
terrorist threats to airports, etc. - Police action, no need for large standing full on forces to support.
no fly zones (north and south of Iraq) - Rif Raf, not army, but also an optional war
Libya -Rif Raf again
Falklands Islands - Only war we've had to fight in over quarter of a century - Navy and Paras/Marines with a supporting role by the RAF
Fishery protection - Navy and coastguard
flood support (York, BoxCastle etc) - Civil support - no need for large standing full on forces to support
Mountain Rescue -Rif Raf and Navy
Winter support (only last year Army Land Rovers were ferrying midwifes and medics) - so were lots of non Mod 4x4's like mine
Nothing there you quote requires us to maintain a large standing full on, full capability army.

The only war we've had to fight was actually fought using the sort of forces that the new concept of 'Strategic Raiding' would deliver. Navy delivering light forces, Paras/Marines, by amphibious means to defeat a specific local threat.
 
#12
Also on the site and directly related:

Armed forces' top brass were fighting the wrong battle | Analysis | UK news | The Guardian

Key quote:

"What will the regular army do when its combat role in Afghanistan comes to an end in 2014? The lack of a convincing answer has left the generals vulnerable to even deeper cuts than those due to be officially announced on Thursday. "

The lack of any visible response to that question from the Regular Army means, for me, that 82,000 will only be an interim step before further cuts. And before you all get bent out of shape and frothing at the mouth in true "outraged of Tunbridge Wells" style, try answering the question. How do you convince the average taxpayer, who is suffering through redundancies, cuts, lack of pay rises, and so on that they should pay to keep a bunch of squaddies sitting round twiddling their thumbs just in case ? It's likely that Regular cuts will be balanced by increases in the Reserve so it's not as if there will be no-one available.
It seems like a strange question to me. Surely the armed forces are there for what we don't forsee, a sort of insurance policy. Thinking that defence is a luxury we can't afford is likely to end in tears IMO.
 
#13
Nothing there you quote requires us to maintain a large standing full on, full capability army.

The only war we've had to fight was actually fought using the sort of forces that the new concept of 'Strategic Raiding' would deliver. Navy delivering light forces, Paras/Marines, by amphibious means to defeat a specific local threat.
Do you mean on its own or taken as a group?

Nothing wrong with light forces in place of our heavies, but cutting below a certain figure will render the whole thing pointless and we may as well take a leaf out of Costa Rica's book.
 
#14
Do you mean on its own or taken as a group?

Nothing wrong with light forces in place of our heavies, but cutting below a certain figure will render the whole thing pointless and we may as well take a leaf out of Costa Rica's book.
Even after the cuts, we're still more than capable of taking on a fighting and winning against any realistic non optional adversary.

The Russians went away in 1989, the war in Kuwait in 1991 was the last hurrah of full on 'Cold War' tank actions, we fought a large army with WARPAC gear and tactics and we won.
We also proved that tank forces are now incredibly vulnerable to airborne attack, so tanks, nice to have, but really, there day is pretty much done so time to move on from an Army kitted out and trained to fight the Fantasians on the north German plains.
 
#15
That I am not argueing, heavy perhaps has seen its day. Troop numbers on the other hand.

We're maintaining 9,000 blokes on Ops at the moment, so we'd need 45,000 blokes in the Forces JUST for that. And maintain them (if possible) for an enventuality such as that again. Haven't we had a brigade out of the door (at least) since 1993?

Factor in the numbers (just for) standing tasks and training. How small can we really go?
 
#16
Perhaps it's not just the RAF that needs to be assimilated into the main Army ..........

Shirley in this day and age the Ghurkas are a bit old fashioned ? I know they've been good soldiers etc, but to use people from one country as a seperate force ? We don't have battalions of Poles, Aussies or Fijiians do we. They join the Army in the Regt or Corps of their choice. Perhaps Ghurkas need to do the same if they want to continue soldiering with us ? Plenty of other regiments have been amalgamated. Mind you, Joanna Lumley can only be spread so thin !!!
 
#17
And how many of these operations since 1993 have been national needs rather than vanity wars?

This is the issue. If we're going to keep sticking our nose into the rest of the world and being a global Policeman, we need large forces, but do we want to keep on picking up the tab and the resentment for being a Cop?
 
#19
Part of the problem the Army has is the huge volume of absolute bollocks that has been trotted out in the past to justify what were in reality parochial capbadge driven decisions aimed at maximising Regular PIDs. Well, that and the inability of Very Senior Officers to say what they really think until they write their memoirs.

That's why politicians don't believe what they're told and why the current administration has such a love affair with the Reserves. They are perceived as being able to be honest as their careers are not ended as a result.

The other strand is that "wars of choice" are no more. Despite some trash talk over Libya we were never going to escalate, and we're running for the exits in AFG as we speak. Having to mobilise the Reserves to repeat TELIC/HERRICK is a feature, not a bug. It is hoped that requiring widespread public support for foreign interventions will avoid repeating the two pointless wastes of blood and treasure New Labour lied to get us involved in.

And as for heavy forces, well, another own goal. A sensible Army would be pushing hard to replace Regular Armd Regts with Reserve Armd Regts. The British Army says "it's Regulars or nothing" and gets ... nothing. Well played. Not.
 
#20
Current force strength is inadequate for the commitments we have.

Cutting away from the coat tails of Uncle Sam, and all the foreign intervention that goes with it, would massively reduce the defence ( offence ?) budget we can barely afford.

Politicians learning not to stick their oar in for the chance to 'grandstand' on the world stage ( Libya ? ), and return to the principle of fighting wars with clear aims and objectives, that we can properly resource, and can't afford to lose.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top