Royal Marines Gucci Rebrand

or any likely future mission except warfighting against Russia.
How long can Russia keep going on spending on the miltary like they are at the moment. Their economy is smaller than Italy's apparently. Wil they end up bankrupting themselves again like they did at the end of the Cold War?
 

Cyberhacker

Old-Salt
To be fair, a very similar debate occurred at the start of the 20th Century as part of the lessons learned process of the Second Boer War. Should the cavalry be employed as 'cavalry' in the traditional sense or as mounted infantry?
And again in the 21st Century - at least in the US... the first iteration of Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) had two Infantry (or Combined Arms, in the armored (sic) BCTs) and a Cavalry Squadron. This later unit was considered, for all intents, as a third (under-strength) infantry battalion.

After much gnashing of teeth, the BCTs were restructured into three battalion brigades, allowing the Cavalry Squadron to be a proper recon (sic) unit, while the Infantry and Tank units can focus on their day-job too.

This appears to be a lesson that the British Army still hasn't learned.
 
I didnt comment on what he just posted. I commented on a Goutyfrub saying hes a sensible and informative poster, when there is quite a bit of evidence that he is not. (See post 561).
A bloke who thought replacing the military with civvies is a good indication that he has little experience of the Armed forces despite what ever positions in defence that he held.
Why not? I as a "civvy" manage to do lots of jobs done by service personnel in the other 2 branches. And plenty of otherwise experienced armed forces personnel have unusual ideas for reforming or running the organisation. Doesn't invalidate everything they have done and think.

The reason goutyfrub thinks that is Jim30 nomally posts his views with in-depth supporting information in a reasonable and articulate way.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
 
Why not? I as a "civvy" manage to do lots of jobs done by service personnel in the other 2 branches. And plenty of otherwise experienced armed forces personnel have unusual ideas for reforming or running the organisation. Doesn't invalidate everything they have done and think.

The reason goutyfrub thinks that is Jim30 nomally posts his views with in-depth supporting information in a reasonable and articulate way.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
Why not? Because in nearly every area the civvies have taken over its gone to rat shit, they dont do duties, dont do overtime without pay, dont do tasks outside there job description, don't deploy, can strike, can work to rule etc etc.
Anyone with any experience of the Army knows that, some pen pusher with a blog just sees that on paper they are "cheaper" and tells everyone how much better it would be.

Jim30 just uses big words to mask the fact he very often doesn't know what he is talking about (like 80% of personnel earning 27k basic), he'd make a good politician.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
Aussie’s have released a very comprehensive defence equipment plan today. Unlike the UK, they actually have a f$&king plan, which appears to be costed out!

Why is the UK military so shite at coming up with basics, should we not simply cut and paste what the French and/or Australians are doing? Answers on a postcard please.
There is a plan, the Equipment Plan (EP), its pretty considerable and evolves over time.

Without the EP you'd not be seeing CASD, Typhoon, A400 etc. We are from 'shite at coming up with basics'.

We know what we want and need, £ tends to be in short supply and where it does exist our industrial base often let's us down.

Australia have their share of fuckwittery. Go read up on their foray into attack helicopters, submarines or Google the T26/Hunter and redesigning the masts. What they want to do is great, they have a very clear threat but they have to deliver it and they have to protect the money.
 
Last edited:
Why not? Because in nearly every area the civvies have taken over its gone to rat shit, they dont do duties, dont do overtime without pay, dont do tasks outside there job description, don't deploy, can strike, can work to rule etc etc.
Anyone with any experience of the Army knows that, some pen pusher with a blog just sees that on paper they are "cheaper" and tells everyone how much better it would be.

Jim30 just uses big words to mask the fact he very often doesn't know what he is talking about (like 80% of personnel earning 27k basic), he'd make a good politician.
Don't they? So I don't have to do duty today? Fantastic that will make tonight much easier! And I'll tell the Second engineer to shove it when he asks me to cover genny trials in the evening like last night! And I don't have to do the job of a Lt, CPO, LH and brace ABs by myself? Whoooop!

You have already shown yourself as blinkered and not willing to understand that things can be different just in this conversation.

Are civvies a panacea? No.

Are civvies workshy retards? Also no...

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
I didnt comment on what he just posted. I commented on a Goutyfrub saying hes a sensible and informative poster, when there is quite a bit of evidence that he is not. (See post 561).
A bloke who thought replacing the military with civvies is a good indication that he has little experience of the Armed forces despite what ever positions in defence that he held.
But, that's just your perspective.

There are plenty of examples of where we have and can replace military with civilians.

He's served on operations, worked in major HQ and has a successful policy career in the CS. You might not agree or like it but his observations and opinion are as equally valid as yours.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
verily is a strange claim.
The RAF and Navy run vast amounts of US kit with not a peep, but Land seem fixated on the issue.
The Navy doesn't run vast amounts of US kit, even taking into account SWS in CASD.

In specialised cryptos and radios there are some FMS sourced equipments, the odd specialised system, but its far from 'vast'.

Hulls - not US; submarines - not US; rotary wing - not US; Guided weapons systems - not US: RADAR - not US. Torpedoes- not US......

We tend to buy into US FMS programmes for 5E capability and even then where there isn't an interoperable UK equivalent and seeking to create one neither is practical or cost effective.
 
But, that's just your perspective.

There are plenty of examples of where we have and can replace military with civilians.

He's served on operations, worked in major HQ and has a successful policy career in the CS. You might not agree or like it but his observations and opinion are as equally valid as yours.
Im fairly certain that nearly every civvie replacement in the Army has led to more work for those serving and/or more cost to the military and/or less of a service.

He did one tour as navy reserve.
He can have his observations and opinions like everyone else, but I can say why they are bollocks.
 
The Navy doesn't run vast amounts of US kit, even taking into account SWS in CASD.

In specialised cryptos and radios there are some FMS sourced equipments, the odd specialised system, but its far from 'vast'.

Hulls - not US; submarines - not US; rotary wing - not US; Guided weapons systems - not US: RADAR - not US. Torpedoes- not US......

We tend to buy into US FMS programmes for 5E capability and even then where there isn't an interoperable UK equivalent and seeking to create one neither is practical or cost effective.
It always makes me smile when people say 'we chinned off all that foreign crap and went British instead', either forgetting, ignoring, or ignorant of the fact that a significant proportion of systems, sub-systems and components thereof are sourced abroad. For instance, on the project I am involved with, in addition to UK OEMs we have ones in the US, Canada, Germany, Italy, France and Spain. All items shipped to Scotstoun and integrated/installed there. They are usually in the non-sexy areas of power and propulsion, hull and ship's services but a significant proportion nonetheless. Obviously, the problem with US kit is ITAR . . .

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

clanky

War Hero
It always makes me smile when people say 'we chinned off all that foreign crap and went British instead, either forgetting, ignoring, or ignorant of the fact that a significant proportion of systems, sub-systems and components thereof are sourced abroad. For instance, on the project I am involved with, in addition to UK OEMs we have ones in the US, Canada, Germany, Italy, France and Spain. All items shipped to Scotstoun and integrated/installed there. They are usually in the non-sexy areas of power and propulsion, Hull and ships services but a significant proportion nonetheless. Obviously, the problem with US kit is ITAR . . .

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
NSRP?
 
Don't they? So I don't have to do duty today? Fantastic that will make tonight much easier! And I'll tell the Second engineer to shove it when he asks me to cover genny trials in the evening like last night! And I don't have to do the job of a Lt, CPO, LH and brace ABs by myself? Whoooop!

You have already shown yourself as blinkered and not willing to understand that things can be different just in this conversation.

Are civvies a panacea? No.

Are civvies workshy retards? Also no...

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
You do an armed stag on the gate as a civvie do you?

I didn't claim civvies were workshy retards although its interesting that you thought that.

My point was you cant make civvies do anything outside of their contract in the Army. Yet balloonheads like Jim30 tout how much cheaper it is to replace Pte Bloggs with Mr Bloggs because you dont have to pay civvies so much or give them subsidised housing. Then when you ask, who will be doing Pte Bloggs duties, tours, exercises, unpaid overtime, jiff jobs, emergency call out etc the answer seems to be everyone else can cover it.
 
There is a plan, the Equipment Plan (EP), its pretty considerable and evolves over time.

Without the EP you'd not be seeing CASD, Typhoon, A400 etc. We are from 'shite at coming up with basics'.

We know what we want and need, £ tends to be in short supply and where it does exist our industrial base often let's us down.

Australia have their share of fuckwittery. Go read up on their foray into attack helicopters or Google the T26/Hunter and redesigning the masts. What they want to do is great, they have a very clear threat but they have to deliver it and they have to protect the money.
All Navy and RAF though. Army programmes conspicuously absent.
 
The assessments did cover the limitations of MRCA (ADV) - there were concerns about altitude performance because of the RB199's optimisation for the low level role, combat persistence (there were several varying design solutions to get the eight missile fit).

The Blue Circle farce didn't mean that it made sense to bin the F3. First, the cancellation penalties would've been considerable. Second, the F-15A and F-15C are boom refuellers - where do you get the AAR from? Place reliance upon the USAF? Or go out and buy a new tanker type, with a boom, in a fit of unexpected spending which the Treasury isn't going to support funding anyway? While the RAF would've loved to have had the KC-10 as a ready-made replacement for the Victors, there was no chance of them being bought in the late 1980s or early 1990s.


Yes, the US offered F-15s on several occasions, and each one was a clear attempt to kill the Tornado programme (and in the 80s, the Typhoon, then EFA), which wasn't politically acceptable. The offers weren't ever free - because of the support costs which would've been incurred and the destruction of large chunks of the UK aerospace industry, at least in terms of military production.
everone tends to forget that EFA wasn’t a hot shot air superiority fighter, it was a replacement for the Jaguar as originally envisioned - it was very much in the F/A-18 class - although the Germans really wanted an even simpler single engined aircraft. That it was such a stellar performer, it was able to be fairly effortlessly pushed out as a really good air superiority fighter was a lucky bonus, but it still suffers as it doesn’t have really long legs as it’s small.

Would the RAF buying the F-15 have killed off the British aviation industry? Well, it managed to survive the 5 years of full time dicking around the Germans put into the Eurofighter that pushed back the ISD nearly 5 years and added £Billions to the cost. Tornado ADV was a diversion that delivered a very poor result for a very big slice of wedge, very late, only delivering an effective plane in time for its OSD.

like far too many programmes at the time, I’m looking at you Nimrod AEW, Tornado ADV was the non preferred option with the end user, pushed through to benefit the crooks at GEC, Marconi, Ferranti and co who made a career of promising the moon, but delivering hulks for the fire dumps.

The RAF was very lucky the Cold War ended when it did, it would have had to fight against the Soviets next generation fighters with F-4’s - but at least the shareholders got rich while the RAF got bent over and stiffed time after time.

A2A refuelling? Now there’s another sorry tale of woe, who’s full impact is only now hitting us as the RAF inducts so many boom refuellers into its drogue refuelled service. Even a small fraction of the untold £Billions squandered in the 80’s would have bought the RAF at the time a good refuelling capability. It’s not as if the market at the time wasn’t awash with older passenger aircraft suitable for converting. And It’s not as if 1982 hadn't flogged the existing ad hoc fleets to death while proving how vital a capability they were.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
everone tends to forget that EFA wasn’t a hot shot air superiority fighter, it was a replacement for the Jaguar as originally envisioned - it was very much in the F/A-18 class - although the Germans really wanted an even simpler single engined aircraft. That it was such a stellar performer, it was able to be fairly effortlessly pushed out as a really good air superiority fighter was a lucky bonus, but it still suffers as it doesn’t have really long legs as it’s small.

Would the RAF buying the F-15 have killed off the British aviation industry? Well, it managed to survive the 5 years of full time dicking around the Germans put into the Eurofighter that pushed back the ISD nearly 5 years and added £Billions to the cost. Tornado ADV was a diversion that delivered a very poor result for a very big slice of wedge, very late, only delivering an effective plane in time for its OSD.

like far too many programmes at the time, I’m looking at you Nimrod AEW, Tornado ADV was the non preferred option with the end user, pushed through to benefit the crooks at GEC, Marconi, Ferranti and co who made a career of promising the moon, but delivering hulks for the fire dumps.

The RAF was very lucky the Cold War ended when it did, it would have had to fight against the Soviets next generation fighters with F-4’s - but at least the shareholders got rich while the RAF got bent over and stiffed time after time.

A2A refuelling? Now there’s another sorry tale of woe, who’s full impact is only now hitting us as the RAF inducts so many boom refuellers into its drogue refuelled service. Even a small fraction of the untold £Billions squandered in the 80’s would have bought the RAF at the time a good refuelling capability. It’s not as if the market at the time wasn’t awash with older passenger aircraft suitable for converting. And It’s not as if 1982 hadn't flogged the existing ad hoc fleets to death while proving how vital a capability they were.
You’re wrong. Jaguar was one aircraft it was supposed to replace but not the only one.

Hence all the misinformed posts over the years about turning a great fighter into a bomb truck. A2G was always a core role.

You’re closer to being right about the tanker. The standard Airbus offering also has a boom and we really could do with one now. But Gordon Brown and his insistence on double bookkeeping gave us Airtanker, since acknowledged as the king of almighty bog-ups.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
My point was you cant make civvies do anything outside of their contract in the Army.
It's how you manage and treat people. I've an increasing number of CS in my teams. They go well beyond their TORS to provide support and are made to feel valued members of my teams. Where we can we use the bonus schemes to reward them, some are now becoming Reserves because they enjoy the culture.

balloonheads like Jim30 tout how much cheaper it is to replace Pte Bloggs with Mr Bloggs because you dont have to pay civvies so much or give them subsidised housing. Then when you ask, who will be doing Pte Bloggs duties, tours, exercises, unpaid overtime, jiff jobs, emergency call out etc the answer seems to be everyone else can cover it.
In that ramble there more about a lack of planning and foresight indicative of crappy management and behaviours than workforce values.

Jiff jobs.... speaks volumes

Duties/tours/exercises there for uniformed personnel and able to do that sensibly if you use civilian support sensibly.
 
Last edited:

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
Im fairly certain that nearly every civvie replacement in the Army has led to more work for those serving and/or more cost to the military and/or less of a service.
Evidence that. You can't because its utter rubbish, so tell me why would anyone trust your opinions when you trot out bullshit like that?
 
Top