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

Discussion in 'Strategic Defence & Spending Review (SDSR)' started by soleil, Sep 1, 2011.

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. Schaden

    Schaden LE Book Reviewer

    Contributors to Arrse, the army rumour service blog, cautioned those who were seeking to leave the services. "Stay in as long as you can," said one. "It's a bit crap out here these days."
  2. "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.
  3. 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.
  4. Perhaps he is after a job in DE and S next!
  5. 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.
  6. 150 Gurkhas axed under MoD cuts - *UK News - MSN News UK

    So the Gurkhas lose 150 men. The company I work for laid off more than that and it did not even make the local paper!..bit of a non story really.

    Looking at the photo and the amount of medals they are displaying, I would suggest they are quite good value for money.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Northern Ireland
    Sierra Leone
    Fireman strikes
    bin men strikes
    ambulance men strikes
    terrorist threats to airports, etc.
    no fly zones (north and south of Iraq)
    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.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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?