Another bright idea from yet another "think" tank

[Rob_Lee]

Just 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.
_________________
http://talesoftheblackcrane.blogspot.com/

[Duck Crusader]

Ever notice that the one thing 'think tanks' are supposed to do is the one thing they usually don't?
_________________
When you're discussing MRE's in terms of acres you know something has gotten truly screwed up.

[WDP]

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.

[Big Dave]

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.
_________________
The Man, The Legend - BUY MY STUFF!
Dave's Wiki

http://www.amazon.co.uk/shops/indavesworld

[Giles]

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.
_________________
Has anyone seen my little blog?

[WDP]

[Gungnir]

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.
_________________
Handle every stressful situation like a dog.
Pee on it and walk away.

[WDP]

[WDP]

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

[Ronan the Librarian]

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?
_________________
Muttley, you snickering, cloth-eared hound - when courage is needed, you're never around.
Those medals you wear on that moth-eaten chest, should be there for bungling, at which you are best.

[Battledamaged]

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!!
_________________
"follow me men, I`ll be right behind you!"

[Peewee]

Anyone read this?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doing-Less-Making-Britain-Societas/dp/1845400429/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246373346&sr=1-1

A good argument that a radical rethink of defence policy in general is needed.
_________________
Anyone fancy a snog?

[bangorstu]

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.
_________________
Eryri fynyddig i mi
Bro dawel y delyn yw.

[WDP]

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 ?

[Big Dave]

[Norman D. Landings]

If there's one thing that absolutely boils my piss, it's politicians talking about Britain's future defence requirements.

We DON'T KNOW what our future defence requirements are.
Since WWII, no government has EVER got it right...

Nobody predicted that five years later, we'd have to scrape together the manpower to fight one of the allies - China - on the other side of the world.

Then they tooled up to face the massed armoured divisions of the Red army.
When our actual defence requirement turned out to be thirty years of counter-terrorist operations within our own borders!

Then we have the money pit that is Eurofighter... five years late & more than triple it's budget we finally get the plane that was built to outfly the most advanced aircraft of the Soviet Unio........ oh.

Politicians have never got it right on this subject. They won't get it right now. They'll commit us to eye-wateringly expensive projects... which will either be cancelled, which is money for nothing, or which will turn up years late and many times overbudget.

What no politician will ever do, though is face the fact that they can't always predict what's coming.
Like it's somehow admitting failure to allow the armed forces to buy 'off the shelf' systems as and when they need them, to meet actual, genuine defence requirements, rather than the predictions of ministerial think tanks.


Rant over.

[Giles]

I quite like the idea of a "Ministerial Think Tank" - just randomly select enough ministers to man a Challenger, give them some basic training, and then send them off to Afghanistan. It would be like the famous John Prescott Battlebus, only a tank in a war zone. Of course I expect it to be an early casualty to friendly fire...
_________________
Has anyone seen my little blog?

[WDP]

The prime minister (*) is visiting a primary school and he visits one of the classes. They are in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asks the PM if he would like to lead the discussion of the word "tragedy."
So the illustrious leader asks the class for an example of a tragedy. One little boy stands up and offers: "If my best friend who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a runaway tractor comes along and knocks him dead, that would be a tragedy."

"No," says the PM, "that would be an accident."

A little girl raises her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."

"I'm afraid not," explains the exalted leader. "That's what we would call a great loss."

The room goes silent. No other children volunteer. The PM searches the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?"

Finally at the back of the room, little Johnny raises his hand. In a quiet voice he says: "If the plane carrying you was struck by a missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy."

"Fantastic!" exclaims the PM, "That's right. And can you tell me why that would be a tragedy?"

"Well," says the boy, "because it sure as hell wouldn't be a great loss and it probably wouldn't be an accident either."



(*) Replace by politician of choice.

[Ronan the Librarian]

[Glynis_&_Gary]

[Rob_Lee]

[Big Dave]

[Battledamaged]

I apologize, I didnt want to sound "preachy" or argumentative, and there are some valid points been raised, I was being very general in my comments, and Rob... I didnt mean to imply everybody who goes into further education is in it for the money, although from my limited experience of students, they go for an education, which in turn will greatly enhance their earning prospects, whatever field it is they are interested in, rather than going for example, lesser paid and more menial jobs straight from school. Again it was a generalization, there are always going to be exceptions, I just meant that the majority seem to do it to help their chances of better jobs with better pay prospects, and I thank the stars that there are a lot of dedicated people who go into further education and study hard to attain jobs that require specialist knowledge. Where would we be without doctors, engineers etc.
Will also agree that the Navy do get a bit overlooked with their role in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
RtL: you are correct in saying Typhoon was over budget and that it can only operate out of fixed sites, however, fixed sites are made wherever they are required, for as long as they are needed, not just permanent sites in UK and Germany, they also can fly from UK, be refuelled in the air and complete missions far from base, before returning, this is however, not cost effective, its easier to make a semi permanent fixed site closer to where it is needed, and once the job, like Iraq, is finished, leave it for the locals to utilise.
_________________
"follow me men, I`ll be right behind you!"

[Big Dave]

I have no shame in admiting that I went to Uni to increase my possible earnings, I picked a course that sounded interesting but money was my motivation, it didn't work so I am going back as a postgrad but its still the money that motivates me.
_________________
The Man, The Legend - BUY MY STUFF!
Dave's Wiki

http://www.amazon.co.uk/shops/indavesworld

[Giles]

I went to university so I could spend 4 years sleeping, drinking and fornicating (of which I managed 2 out of 3, which isn't that bad...). I can't be the only one....
_________________
Has anyone seen my little blog?