To your corners: Army vs RN & RAF...

#1
#2
#4
I didn't read that as biased towards anyone.
I read it as everybody in uniform is getting a slice.
It's the slant of the article with gems such as this:

Instead, military chiefs want the Government to reduce spending on some costly equipment programmes, such as the F35B Joint Strike Fighter aircraft being bought for the two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. There are also concerns about the £12 billion cost of 13 Type 26 frigates.
 
#5
It's the slant of the article with gems such as this:

Instead, military chiefs want the Government to reduce spending on some costly equipment programmes, such as the F35B Joint Strike Fighter aircraft being bought for the two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. There are also concerns about the £12 billion cost of 13 Type 26 frigates.

They are examples of the most expensive equipment programmes though aren't they?
I'm not suggesting for one second I agree with the joe public level intelligence of the article but it doesn't really give civvys an idea of defence spending if they use something minute to represent such things.
 
#6
It's the slant of the article with gems such as this:

Instead, military chiefs want the Government to reduce spending on some costly equipment programmes, such as the F35B Joint Strike Fighter aircraft being bought for the two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. There are also concerns about the £12 billion cost of 13 Type 26 frigates.
But no Army procurements - interesting!
 
#7
How else are we going to be completely caught by surprise and fall over without a fight when the next foe comes knocking.To achieve this we must reduce our Armed Forces to such low numbers that they are ineffectual and undeployable, reduce morale to non existent and ensure none of our equipment is fit for purpose (see "Ashchurch" thread) All in the name of cost saving and deficit reduction.
I'm sure history will show the is the point in time when Britain hung up its guns on the international gunslinger stage. The lack of commitment to tackling ISIS currently is the first sign of our governments lack of intent to stay in the game. A result of the WMD fallout that Blair is now finding himself in the middle of, being blamed for everything from killing British soldiers by not equipping them properly, to compensation claims for Iraqis who, despite carrying arms 2 minutes prior were suddenly traumatised and needed a hug when captured, despite British soldiers treating them like the enemy, not victims that they must surely be!
I watch with a heavy heart each week as I see the next blow to our Armed Services, numbers, equipment, morale, pay, discipline, uniform, amalgamation, loss of unit identity, pay as you dine, lack of real training experience, closure of facilities blah blah blah, I see this wonderful institution we are/were all part of slowly but surely reduced to far from the Best, only Lictenstein and Switzerland are in a worse position.
 
Last edited:
#8
They are examples of the most expensive equipment programmes though aren't they?
I'm not suggesting for one second I agree with the joe public level intelligence of the article but it doesn't really give civvys an idea of defence spending if they use something minute to represent such things.
As stated by Yokel, all of the items listed are RN or RAF procurement. Coughlin's getting worse and if his brief is to actively stop people reading the Telegraph he's achieving it.
 
B

bumgrapes

Guest
#9
As stated by Yokel, all of the items listed are RN or RAF procurement. Coughlin's getting worse and if his brief is to actively stop people reading the Telegraph he's achieving it.
Coughlin still speaks of the Iraq adventure as if it all went really well. The man is the most hawkish journalist out there
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
How else are we going to be completely caught by surprise and fall over without a fight when the next foe comes knocking.To achieve this we must reduce our Armed Forces to such low numbers that they are ineffectual and undeployable, reduce moral to non existent and ensure none of our equipment is fit for purpose (see "Ashchurch" thread) All in the name of cost saving and deficit reduction.
I'm sure history will show the is the point in time when Britain hung up its guns on the international gunslinger stage. The lack of commitment to tackling ISIS currently is the first sign of our governments lack of intent to stay in the game. A result of the WMD fallout that Blair is now finding himself in the middle of, being blamed for everything from killing British soldiers by not equipping them properly, to compensation claims for Iraqis who, despite carrying arms 2 minutes prior were suddenly traumatised and needed a hug when captured, despite British soldiers treating them like the enemy, not victims that they must surely be!
I watch with a heavy heart each week as I see the next blow to our Armed Services, numbers, equipment, moral, pay, discipline, uniform, amalgamation, loss of unit identity, pay as you dine, lack of real training experience, closure of facilities blah blah blah, I see this wonderful institution we are/were all part of slowly but surely reduced to far from the Best, only Lictenstein and Switzerland are in a worse position.
"The sinews of war are infinite money." - Cicero

The economy is in bits and, even if we had the money, there's no point in trying to take on ISIS directly because we lack the necessary doctrine and legal frameworks to do so effectively and for a sustained period of time.

If we're being brutally honest, the lack of public and political support, and there fore much of the vulnerability to cuts, is due in no little part to a combination of consistent operational failure derived largely from a completely irresponsible attitude from the CoC towards accepting missions without ever extracting the required degree of support and resources from the politicians who want those missions undertaken. We've also had a complete fiasco in procurement which should have seen people jailed, and shown a predilection for prestige projects outwith a fully planned, costed and co-ordinated framework for national defence - all three services have to take responsibility for much of that.

Austerity will be with us for a while but there are things that could be done even so; the first and easiest of which would be to get the high command of all three services to leave their uniforms at the door and come up with an integrated national defence plan with the requirements clearly identified, justified and costed. That would give them a sound basis for arguing about budgets with politicians and it would give Joe Public a way of at least understanding some of the basics of the defence debate. If the political lead to do this is not forthcoming, they should take the initiative themselves and not wait to be told.

The next thing they could do is learn to stop saying 'yes' unconditionally to every hare-brained scheme that comes their way, and the third thing they could do is instantly dismiss any creature who championed narrow service interests over the wider defence interests of the UK (as identified by the plan) and waffled about 'national prestige'.

It's not too much to ask for a bit of intellectual and moral rigour from people who are supposed to be at the top of their profession, and it would create a base on which things could be turned around.
 
Last edited:
#11
"The sinews of war are infinite money." - Cicero

The economy is in bits and, even if we had the money, there's no point in trying to take on ISIS directly because we lack the necessary doctrine and legal frameworks to do so effectively and for a sustained period of time.

If we're being brutally honest, the lack of public and political support, and there fore much of the vulnerability to cuts, is due in no little part to a combination of consistent operational failure derived largely from a completely irresponsible attitude from the CoC towards accepting missions without ever extracting the required degree of support and resources from the politicians who want those missions undertaken. We've also had an complete fiasco in procurement which should have seen people jailed, and shown a predilection for prestige projects outwith a fully planned, costed and co-ordinated framework for national defence - all three services have to take responsibility for much of that.

Austerity will be with us for a while but there are things that could be done even so; the first and easiest of which would be to get the high command of all three services to leave their uniforms at the door and come up with an integrated national defence plan with the requirements clearly identified, justified and costed. That would give them a sound basis for arguing about budgets with politicians and it would give Joe Public a way of at least understanding some of the basics of the defence debate. If the political lead to do this is not forthcoming, they should take the initiative themselves and not wait to be told.

The next thing they could do is learn to stop saying 'yes' unconditionally to every hare-brained scheme that comes their way, and the third thing they could do is instantly dismiss any creature who championed narrow service interests over the wider defence interests of the UK (as identified by the plan) and waffled about 'national prestige'.

It's not too much to ask for a bit of intellectual and moral rigour from people who are supposed to be at the top of their profession, and it would create a base on which things could be turned around.
I agree with everything you have said, especially when it comes to the idiots who are in charge. I for one would swallow an increase in taxes to fund a sustainable, well equipped and paid Armed Forces. I voted conservative, always have, but I am astounded by the cuts being made at the MOD. Put up income tax and VAT, a penny in the pound purely for defence, the public would be up in arms, there would be marches on Downing Street and the Liberals would go mad, but then the waters would recede and the whoha would go away, we would have the Armed Forces we need and deserve. At the same time a shake up in Whitehall and stoppage of backhanders, over budget, penalty-less contracts and $600 hammers.
 
#12
"...the first and easiest of which would be to get the high command of all three services to leave their uniforms at the door and come up with an integrated national defence plan with the requirements clearly identified, justified and costed. That would give them a sound basis for arguing about budgets with politicians and it would give Joe Public a way of at least understanding some of the basics of the defence debate.

If the political lead to do this is not forthcoming, they should take the initiative themselves and not wait to be told...
UK military leaders telling the politicians what to do? I can see that happening (again).

BBC News 21 Jun 2011 said:
David Cameron said: "There are moments when I wake up and read the newspapers and think: 'I tell you what, you do the fighting and I'll do the talking'."...
...Last week, the First Sea Lord, Sir Mark Stanhope, warned that continuing operations in Libya beyond September would mean taking ships away from other tasks. And in briefing notes obtained by The Daily Telegraph and published on Tuesday, Air Chief Marshal Sir Simon Bryant, said morale among personnel was "fragile" and their fighting spirit was being threatened by being over-worked. He said the service was being stretched by intense air operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East...
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
UK military leaders telling the politicians what to do? I can see that happening (again).

But that's part of the problem.

1. One off comments sound like a whinge and can be interpreted as a political attack.
2. 'Running hot' is simply vague waffle.

Had the good ACM been in possession of a national defence plan, he could have succinctly defined what the RAF was currently funded to deliver and quantified both the overstretch and the budget deficiency caused by the extra commitments. Further, he could have done so on a clear policy basis and the PM would have been forced to either justify himself, abandon the plan, or ask Gideon to take a gander down the back of the treasury sofa.

As things stand, it simply becomes a case of 'Can't, 'Can', 'Can't' because there's no clear definition about what comes out of the existing budget and what needs extra resourcing. The politicians will always want things on the cheap and the CoC needs a rational basis for arguing for more and a policy basis for legitimately saying 'no'..
 
Last edited:
#14
But that's part of the problem.

1. One off comments sound like a whinge and can be interpreted as a political attack.
2. 'Running hot' is simply vague waffle.

Had the good ACM been in possession of a national defence plan, he could have succinctly defined what the RAF was currently funded to deliver and quantified both the overstretch and the budget deficiency caused by the extra commitments. Further, he could have done so on a clear policy basis and the PM would have been forced to either justify himself, abandon the plan, or ask Gideon to take a gander down the back of the treasury sofa.

As things stand, it simply becomes a case of 'Can't, 'Can', 'Can't' because there's no clear definition about what comes out of the existing budget and what needs extra resourcing. The politicians will always want things on the cheap and the CoC needs a rational basis for arguing for more and a policy basis for legitimately saying 'no'..
How about he did all of that and maybe even suggested that it would all go to rat shit even if 'our' people won? I don't know that of course but would suggest that it's not too far off the actualité. The only thing missing is the national defence plan, no government would sign up to one anyway - how could they justify cuts with one?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
How about he did all of that and maybe even suggested that it would all go to rat shit even if 'our' people won? I don't know that of course but would suggest that it's not too far off the actualité. The only thing missing is the national defence plan, no government would sign up to one anyway - how could they justify cuts with one?
That is essentially my point and why the Chiefs of Staff should create one. The Civil Service knows how to use bureaucracy to drive an agenda and defend its interests, and it's high time the Forces did the same.
 
#16
That is essentially my point and why the Chiefs of Staff should create one. The Civil Service knows how to use bureaucracy to drive an agenda and defend its interests, and it's high time the Forces did the same.
Can you imagine the multiple intra service back stabbings to get there?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
Can you imagine the multiple intra service back stabbings to get there?
I don't disagree - but then we need to start looking at the service ethos and officer training of all three services if we cannot produce individuals of sufficient strength of mind and character to see the bigger picture when they reach the higher echelons of command and act in the national interest (not to mention showing the leadership qualities required to rein in the inadequacies and petty prejudices of their subordinates).
 
#18
There is a 'national defence plan', in fact there are 2: the SDSR and the annual Defence Strategic Direction that falls out of that.

Sorry to disappoint and all.
 
#19
So basically the pay system is going back to how it was pre 2001? Like PAYD, beware of what you wish for. The amount of complaining about higher/lower bands, a lower rank earning more than a higher rank etc has bought this on so we've only got ourselves (collectively) to blame.

I think removing the AIP for doing Class One trade course is a stupid mistake as other than being qualified for promotion, there's sod all immediate reward for doing your class one, especially if it's a 6 - 9 month lick out.

I'd be lying if I say I wasn't worried about what the forthcoming SDSR has in store for all for us.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
There is a 'national defence plan', in fact there are 2: the SDSR and the annual Defence Strategic Direction that falls out of that.

Sorry to disappoint and all.
No there isn't, there's a muddled compromise produced by a poisonous mix of infighting, horse trading, political expediency and a fatal attraction for shiny kit.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top