Another bright idea from yet another "think" tankJust seen this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8125466.stm
Not that I'm any expert - I daresay many of you will know a great deal more about it than I - but given the way our armed forces have been treated especially on a political front, and the apparently ever increasing responsibilities they're being asked to take up in current times, what lunacy wants us to cut back on defence spending?! Especially scaling back on conventional capabilities. :grr:
Ever notice that the one thing 'think tanks' are supposed to do is the one thing they usually don't?
They also call for an increase of the armed forces by 15 to 20 %, more special forces and increased training. That seems to be acknowledge that the armed forces can only be asked to do such much before they collapse.
We should stop wasting money on stupid stuff like new aircraft carriers and trident, that money would fund an armed forced equipped for the job it actually does for years.
Unfortunately, the reality is that the UK is on the verge of
bankruptcy (it must be technically balance sheet insolvent by now) and spending is going to have to be cut right across the board. Given the choice between closing hospitals and cutting the armed forces, politicians (of any colour) will usually plump for the latter. Of course money spent on a soldier is of far more practical use than money spent on a gender re-alignment therapy target manager (and no doubt significantly cheaper!), but it's not going to happen without a total re-think of how the government allocates spending.
gender re-alignment therapy target manager (and no doubt significantly cheaper!)
Never heard of those. Did they misjudge those budgets by £1bn as well ? :)
Actually, seeing that the cutbacks seem to be aimed at the Royal Navy, how much of the defense budgets goes to the various branches ? I suppose it's not 1/3 RAF, 1/3 RN, 1/3 Army but I have no idea how it is divided.
Well, all economics and politics aside, it is true that any armed force today has to look more closely at the possible future role, and an emphasis on hard hitting rapid intervention forces of more limited size seems to be preferable to wall-to-wall armour divisions.
The Dutch govt however was shocked to find out that their new compact air mobile brigade actually needed choppers to get somewhere.
Our current bunch refuses to post marines on merchant ships in the Horn of Africa area, because they could not guarantee proper health care in case of injuries.
The mind boggles at the amount of damage politicians do whenever they open their mouths.
Our current bunch refuses to post marines on merchant ships in the Horn of Africa area, because they could not guarantee proper health care in case of injuries.
Ours kindly replied that they were not going to put Belgian soldiers on ships under the Luxemburg flag.
For those who want to read the report, you can get a PDF version here :
http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=676
Whilst it's not always possible to predict who our future enemies will be, we don't seem to have any clear idea of who we are and what we want to do.
Two aircraft carriers is either one too few, or two too many; the smaller, Harrier-equipped vessels we had during the Falklands War were adequate for that task and most others one could envisage in defence of British interests.
Equally, are we ever likely to refight the Battle of Britain? If not, Typhoons are expensive white elephants that can fly. There is an argument for a small RAF devoted to home defence, and letting the Army and Navy handle their own aerial needs.
As for more special forces - we can't fill the ranks of the line regiments, so how far will standards have to be reduced?
RTL: We cant fill the ranks because youngsters fall into 4 categories these days, those that want a well paid "white collar" job straight away to keep them in the lap of luxury they have become accustomed to, those that dont want to work, those that want to go into further education to get good paid jobs (see first category) and those that are willing to start at the bottom and work their way up. Unfortunately the latter group is in a minority these days.
As to refighting the Battle of Britain, its probably true that scenario isnt going to come along again, however, to fight even limited conflicts you need air superiority to land your troops by helicopter etc. which means you need fighter aircraft to escort them before, during and after missions. Not such a white elephant in those circumstances.
As to the Falklands, most people dont know just how lucky we were to be able to pull that off. I seriously doubt we could do it now.
Of course I wouldnt mind less money, less pay, greater workload, as long as the money saved was spent properly by the NHS, Councils and above all Civil Service and MP`s themselves, rather than useless "upper echelon/Middle management" and shameless "expenses". You should see what a difference there is between the expenses (and amount!) I can claim compared to my Civil Service counterpart!Thats not to say that the MOD and HM Forces dont waste money themselves, for example we have less Squadrons in the RAF than we did in WWII, but yet have 4 times more "Air Staff" and Officers than we did then! Go figure!!
Well no need to do anything with Trident - probably we can extend the life of the subs we've got.
As for recruitment - currently markedly up.
A question for those with more knowledge about the Royal Navy, are there enough escorts for two carriers ? Or are the Type 45 en Astutes part of that escort ?