More cuts & More deployments.

I noticed in the papers yestarday rumours that in the same week that Hoon will announce more troops to Iraq, that he's also going to announce cuts on the back of the way war was fought in Iraq - summarised as "Cut back on troop numbers to pay for better kit".

:?: What the hell is he/the MoD thinking? Yes, of course the guys need better kit, blah de blah, but the forces do a lot more than fight wars? How about fighting fires, keeping the peace, helping in the aftermath of terrorist attacks, and low intensity conflicts where Night Sights and GPSs are bugger all use and what you really need is blokes on the ground!!!

I know I'm probably preaching to the converted but i have to get it off my chest.

I feel a letter to The Times coming on.



War Hero
hoon would announce that Jesus was his first cousin iff he thought that it would get some of the pressure off his back as he is used for target practice by tony blairs media office
I know it's a novel idea not in keeping with the fantasy world that Blair lives in, but if we cut back on the number of theatres we are operational in we wouldn't be spending the huge amounts we are on logistics. Not only are we paying for the upkeep of garrisons in the UK but we are pouring huge amounts of funding into places like Boz where the logistic effort keeping the soldiers out there fed, housed, equipped, moved, etc. This would also have the added bonus of aiding retention from the middle-ranking guys who get out because they spend all of their time stagging on in Boz rather than with their families, putting soldiers back in the UK where they can train and develop for promotion (how many soldiers have had their courses denied or postponed because of pressing operational need?) AND raise a bit of morale. The money saved from the logistic support (hiring private transport firms to ship and move thousands of tons of equipment doesn't come cheap as the DLO keep telling us) and the hiden savings from improved retention could then be offset towards keeping force levels the way they should be AND providing decent kit.

I see the old red peaceniks of the Labour Party haven't lost their commie ways from their days in the protest-politics world of student "ban the bomb" demos.
I spend almost all my time working with politicians and I can assure you that the practicalities of their actions are clearly second to the political and ideological statements they are making. There are no votes in defence but there are in health, schooling, housing, transport etc etc. For a politician cutting defence is an ideological commitment which will release money for the NHS etc. The fact that the army is being asked to do more and more with less and less is just rough luck as far as they're concerned.
This is compounded by a clear and manifest failure of leadership in the upper echelons of all the Services as senior officers are unwilling to take a firm stand on behalf of their men and women. I don't know where this collective lack of moral fibre originates, but it's serious. The old excuse of "I can do more good by staying in than by resigning" just doesn't wash.
If the additional commitments to Iraq are indeed threatening the very cohesion of the army then CGS should be penning his resignation letter right now. But I wouldn't hold your breath.
answer simple lose a war taking loads of casualties in the process
a messed up out of area air borne assault would be ideal crashed and burned hercules full of paras very photogenic :evil: .
Or B when on when one those politicians come out on a photo
opptunity get them embroiled in a fire fight and then say sorry cant get you out radios dont work . Till the armed forces fail in a dramatic way
only the minimum will be spent as iron side says no votes for defence
P.S. no dig at air borne forces intended just highest profile /risky misson
i could think off my hat .slaughtering royal marines would work as well
I guess if another unit got zapped the powers that be would just blame
lack of training


Ironside said:
...a clear and manifest failure of leadership in the upper echelons of all the Services as senior officers are unwilling to take a firm stand on behalf of their men and women. I don't know where this collective lack of moral fibre originates, but it's serious
How does this manifest itself? All they can do is state their case surely?
Or does there exist an atmosphere of fear of speaking your mind? To each other or the politicians? Your suggestion that there should be a resignation letter would suggest exactly that.

Ironside said:
If the additional commitments to Iraq are indeed threatening the very cohesion of the army then CGS should be penning his resignation letter right now.
As if anything the bosses say would stop Bliar in his tracks.
Just a guess.. but like the rest of you they have to work with the scraps they're thrown...they are experienced soldiers themselves remember..not
lying manipulative politicians.
Or does there exist an atmosphere of fear of speaking your mind?
I think if you want evidence of this you need look no further than Dr David Kelly...speak your mind and be exposed, spuin, "hung out to dry", victimised, and briefed against.

I hear what Ironside is saying about politicians, but it brings about 2 points: first if the Armed Forces as a demographic (and I'm incvluding ex-servicemen in this) got together and got political about defence issues like the Veterans Association does in the US (lobbying for pro-Defence decisions), and secondly the public were made more aware of the deficiencies servicemen and women have in their numbers and equipment and the consequences of this and overstretch then maybe the tide would turn. If people understood that tired and overstretched soldiers with insufficient amounts and quality of kit = bodybags then they may start to resist the political desire to prance around the world stage. While Defence might not be seen as a vote winner in lefty circles, foriegn affairs certainly is, and if the Govt wants to export itself the world over then it needs to put the military support into place, and that is the reality it neds to accept.

As for the CDS/CGS, give them time to respond and see what happens. Of course we don't know what goes on behind the scenes in Main Bldg, but I can see this meeting some resistence. At least we can take comfort that they are not all spineless wonders (and it took an outgoing Naval CDS to say this!):

Admiral Sir Michael Boyce link
As always the powers that be will argue the toss and then probaly lose anyway.... and we the unwilling led by the unknowing will continue to do everything with nothing wherever we are sent!! Tour intervals will continue to become more frequent, and the suggestion of a Pads Patch in Banja Luka was tabled 2 years ago. With the drawdown of BFG continuing we need to send the troops somewhere, or is Blair seriously considering phase 4 of that wonderful redundancy plan?
Hoon may go on about getting us 'new kit' in exchange for 'people' and that may wash with most members of the voting public, who, let's face it, are only concerned with issues which directly affect them, NHS, Schools, etc. But what he hasn't said and what will probably never be said by him or his cronies, is that 'new kit' doesn't 'patrol'. Living breathing, eating, farting, fighting soldiers do. And they also hold ground. Stealth helicopters etc, don't hold ground, nor does any computerised piece of 'Gucci', he may promise us. On the up side, 'Gucci' kit doesn't have a wife and two kids to explain why it is being deployed yet again, with no 18 month break in between (as promised a little while ago........or was that just in my unit?). But it will take several men to get it to where it's going, set it up and operate it. They won't do that without protection though. That's down to other human resources, not another 'Gucci' and those resources will be patrolling as part of that protection.

The same man who 'patrols' needs supporting. I believe that the ratio may still be 3:1. This figure may be used as justification in cutting the logistic element of our forces, but I've yet to see a computer driving a DROPS truck, knocking up an egg banjo or helping move you to your area.

I'm at a complete loss with these c*nts. As for the 'Staff'.......well, their pensions are safe and lets face amount of cuts in Defence spending will ever see them signing on.

Now I may never make General (thanks for the support lads, but I think the writing is on the wall), but even I can see that people are going to start leaving shortly due to the amount of deployments they are now getting (Op TELIC 1 now getting ready to re deploy on Op TELIC 3 etc.). As numbers dwindle (and we're running out of TA because they've been f*cked about as well), those who are left, will bear the brunt of the forthcoming deployments which this f*cking Government will continually volunteer us for.

I suppose we could look on the bright side though..........we might be deployed more frequently.......but at least we'll have 'Gucci' kit to take with us!

Lets hope that the UN gets around to helping soon eh?

Agree totallywith what you are saying. The issue with the statements about the new kit is the fact that the Army was promised the exact same kit when SDR and the last round of cuts was taking place - there is bugger all new here.

Also gucci kit requires batteries - what happens when they run out?? The improved kit will help things, but it should never be used as a replacement for having soldiers on the ground.

The Government couldn't give a toss about what happens to the armed forces and would probably be happy to see them slaughtered in various parts of the world - especially if it can make them look big on the international stage and maybe get rid of a few of theose "Horrid forces types". Bastards the lot of them
Anyone know when the last senior officer resigned over a matter of principle? I think it may have been as far back as Aden.

There was a Brigadier a couple of years ago who quit over the homosexuality issue but lets face it, his departure didn't cause much of a ripple.

Then there was the CDS and the Spanish senora and the RAF bloke with the outrageously expensive curtains but I suspect they resigned over the 'getting caught' principle.

So come on chaps! Is there a precedent here?


Why should a senior officer resign in protest?! Waste of all that experience!
They've worked hard for many years in their careers just as all you guys have, and no doubt are doing their best to state the case for more funding from the government. Resignations of these men are not what's would no doubt be rewitten somehow as a personal weakness... the Government and media are rather good at arranging that. :twisted:

Your bosses need to work together, in agreement and be united and back each other up completely even at the risk of their removal.
They have to fight the armed forces corner strongly.
THAT would have to be effective.
It would require integrity and comradeship and courage mind...but looking at their CV's there should be plenty of that there.
Come on bosses! Kick up a stink with the governement TOGETHER..and if one gets booted. ALL resign. You know it makes sense. :D

Jake why don't you do a BBC news story on the dangers to this nation of the current underfunding of the army?
It's true and it's newsworthy....ahh so that'll be a no then. :roll:

(If I'm found in a field..i didn't do it!) :lol:
Unfortunately a lot of their experience is in some ways out of date + most of the senior ranks in the MOD have forgotten what it is to be soldiers, sailors or airmen and are now, for better or worse politicians in their own right.

As to them working together - this would be lovely to see, but due to interservice rivalry it would come a cropper at one level or another. For some resigning in protest would be the most noble and effective way of highlighting the underfunding, short falls in kit and man power that the forces are suffering. Sad, but true......

As to the press getting on the case re kit and overstretch - they did for a while at the start of TELIC 1, but got bored with it as it wasn't sexy enough.....gits :evil:
Why should a senior officer resign in protest?!
Because it sends an unoquivocal message that all is not right. The problem is that had that happened 20 years ago the implications for the government would have been catastrophic, now I think they would be less so because the governemt would try and "spin" their way out, and as the people are so used to that now we hardly take any notice.

Anyone know when the last senior officer resigned over a matter of principle?
Admiral Boyce, the last CDS. It was packaged as him retiring early to spend more time in the garden/with family, but he had had enough of the slicing away at the armed forces. Reading some of the transcripts of Parliamentary Cttees on defence spending you can see he is not a happy bunny. He did also publicly rebuke Hoon at a press conference on manning levels in the early stages of the Gulf conflict.

Mr Happy

Ma_Sonic said:
The same man who 'patrols' needs supporting. I believe that the ratio may still be 3:1. This figure may be used as justification in cutting the logistic element of our forces,
For what it's worth, I understand the yanks have a 10:1 distribution train. Not so surprising when you see what they take to the field.

As for us being overworked, yeah, we probably could pull out of the Balkans or halve the current commitment (what have we got? 2 Bn's and 1 tank and 1 arty sqn? + logistics). When was the last shot rep in Bosnia? And would it even have happened if Britfor wasn't there? France/Germany can do something useful and take over all of that. It's safe, on their doorstep too and will shut them up.

There are of course not enough troops in our army but I do remember getting some nice kit through quite quickly after Options For Change and generally thought it was a good thing. The following SDR's have just be budget saving decisions with no rationale that I can follow. But they've not been that murderous...

And let us not forget exactly how many of you would have complained if we couldn't have deployed to the gulf. "Lily livered peace monkey BLiar not supporting our US friends in their time of need" you'd have said (probabaly).

I for one and quite chuffed to have a PM who wants to get involved, and, if the kit is rare/old just be glad you're not tabbing from one end of the Falklands to the other with questionable air cover, no armour worth a damn, a couple of Chinooks and a rifle over 20 years old identical to the enemies except theirs is capable of full auto and has a folding butt.

Mr H
No senior officer is going to leave because they can not get thier own way or that have to make a stand for the troops. The last one left before he was pushed out or span out by the Labour machine. They only stay at the top for a short time and have now powers over finicial commitments that have been made befor them. They are only looking at getting ready for thier next job as a CEO of some firm that sells SHIT kit to the MOD.

Wake up and smell the coffee people they are as suppotive as arab pants!!!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Give you an idea of what state were in. I've just been on FTRS (you know, that thing they've just cancelled due to budgetary reasons) where i was sent on TELIC 1. I was due to be extended - paperwork sent in on time, theatre troops gave the go ahead etc. Was told last week that in fact APC had cancelled FTRS and that they (conveniently)hadn't received my paperwork ( I wonder how familiar that is to everyone out there!). So not only would I not receive my terminal leave but also not get paid for last month's work. 1 week later I have been called up (this time under compulsory mobilisation to go back to Iraq for another 6 month tour)

STAG ON!!!!!!!
I believe that the MOD & Government are reling more and more on the TA for operational tours My Regiment is just about to be disbanded, why? The equipment is out of date and costing too much. So what do the MOD & Government do, they scrap the equipment disband one of the biggest regiments in the Royal Regiment and spread the manpower throughout the Royal Regiment and tell everyone that the army manning is ok. Well my Regiment was supposed to be “100%” fully manned and one of the best recruited regiments within the RA so why is it they have to take about 10% FTRS on OPs with them. Well they need to wake up and smell the coffee as the retention and recruits actually joining the forces are dropping drastically. I believe that this is all due to being over stretched and undermanned, so instead of cutting defence budget year after year with QMs after there “MBE” penny pinching the politicians need to listen to what the soldiers have to say. Let’s get rid of the yes sir attitude by top ranking officers and get someone with balls in there to do the job.

Sorry for going of the subject I just went on one.

Latest Threads