Think tank: our most devastating weapon is agility

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Jan 24, 2010.

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. From The Sunday Times
    January 24, 2010
    Think tank: our most devastating weapon is agility
    Our services must get smarter to cope with today’s threats
    Michael Clarke
    2 COMMENTS
    RECOMMEND? (1)
    It is said that British military personnel always follow their officers, if only out of curiosity. At the moment their curiosity might also be classed as morbid as they wonder where their commanders want to take them. They all know that big change is coming. A crucial defence review is only months away.

    The armed forces are already doing more operations, and for longer, than was envisaged in the last defence review, in 1998. The forward defence plan is unaffordable within current spending plans, there will be a big squeeze on the public finances from 2011 and we are committed to a difficult war in Afghanistan that will get more expensive before it gets any cheaper. The fighting troops know something will have to give. Defence can expect to be cut by anything up to 15% — perhaps more — in the next four years and the military is likely to take a 20% or so cut in combat units.
    More
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6999816.ece
     
  2. Ah yes: trying to punch above our weight on a shoe string but in a more "agile" way. That will work.

    Cuts of this magnitude while committed to a costly kit eating war mean certainly less adaptable and probably less capable forces. They should be twined with frankly stated expectations of what those forces can achieve and a public discarding of some great power pretensions. A tax shy nation run for the benefit of inept bankers cannot afford them.

    Liable to end up with something like an "agile" army sans heavy equipment and a navy focused on a few big ticket virtually obsolete items of narrow strategic value.
     
  3. It seems a sensible article to me. Concentrate on what can be realistically achived rather than the anachronistic 'Force Projection' using nuke subs and ac carriers. Britain is no longer in a position - militarily or financially - to deploy in ways that the US military can and should look at ways in which it can achieve maximum military effect given the financial constraints under which it Labours.
     
  4. How does that read now?