Defence cuts 'will shrink UK armed forces'

[Mikeyboy]

So defence cuts and increased spending are set to reduce personnel numbers by up to 35,000 in coming years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8455754.stm

I for one am getting increasingly annoyed at this governments and to be fair the Tory oppositions amazing ability to use our armed forces as they see fit but constantly reduce their ability to be effective.

I'm fully expecting the usual comments from ministers saying " we need to adapt our armed forces to the modern world", "leaner forces are more effective" etc. Especially when yesterday a report basically said we haven't enough men already to gaurantee proper in theatre rotations due to injury and illness.

Shambles and a disgrace. There should be more money to the armed forces, not less. At least when you're fighting a war, or two.

[NismoGT]

Bloody disgraceful!

[ShadownINja]

Well, after Gambler Gordon "saved the world", we have no more money! I am expecting him to send £1bn aid relief to Haiti, though.

[Crusoe]

How much do we spend on fighting troops and how much is (IMO wasted) on military bands, ceremonial troops, nice country houses, civilian personnel etc. Why should tax payers subsidise army families to send their kids to private schools for example, lots of cuts that could be made that would not impact on front line duties.

As a fairly small country we don't need that many troops IMO, and should not have so many engaged in combat at the moment.

Edited by Crusoe on Wednesday 13th January 10:44

[Gun]

Yeah, 'cos that's one thing you really want to scrimp and save on isn't it, your armed forces . The sooner Broon and co are out the better.

[derestrictor]

I'm quite sure before the decade is out we will have outsourced the whole UK military endeavour to The Peoples' Republic.

[5unny]

America, China and France are already ahead of us when it comes to miltary expenditure and the Germans and Russians close on our tail.

Give it a couple of years and even the Indians and Saudis will be outspending us.

The days of pretending we are some sort of world policemen are coming to an end.

[Jasandjules]

Gun said:

Yeah, 'cos that's one thing you really want to scrimp and save on isn't it, your armed forces . The sooner Broon and co are out the better.

Absolutely, especially when they are out fighting the illegal war that you started.

[Asterix]

"leaner forces are more effective"

Eh?

Well trained, well equipped and well led efficient forces can be more effective - leaner forces can only do less.

What bks.

[Crusoe]

Guam said:

Crusoe said:

How much do we spend on fighting troops and how much is (IMO wasted) on military bands, ceremonial troops, nice country houses, civilian personnel etc. Why should tax payers subsidise army families to send their kids to private schools for example, lots of cuts that could be made that would not impact on front line duties.

As a fairly small country we don't need that many troops IMO, and should not have so many engaged in combat at the moment.

Edited by Crusoe on Wednesday 13th January 10:44

I think you will find that the Private schools subsidies relates mainly to the nature of the posting (unless things have changed recently) I dont think a squaddie based in Colchester gets a private shool subsidy for his kids (unless you know different)?

As for the Military muscians they do have other battlefield tasking so playing a trumpet isnt all they do (no gay gags please from the ex grunts)


Cheers

Brother in the military, gets a very cheap house in a nice part of London, works a few hours a day in a ceremonial position with occasional trips abroad (I would consider him a part time worker if he was in the private sector), hasn’t done any battlefield tasks since his initial training and would not expect to in the future, gets big subsidies for private schooling for his kid even though his wife is at home and could look after them and take them to a local school.

[Halb]

Crusoe said:

Guam said:

Crusoe said:

How much do we spend on fighting troops and how much is (IMO wasted) on military bands, ceremonial troops, nice country houses, civilian personnel etc. Why should tax payers subsidise army families to send their kids to private schools for example, lots of cuts that could be made that would not impact on front line duties.

As a fairly small country we don't need that many troops IMO, and should not have so many engaged in combat at the moment.

Edited by Crusoe on Wednesday 13th January 10:44

I think you will find that the Private schools subsidies relates mainly to the nature of the posting (unless things have changed recently) I dont think a squaddie based in Colchester gets a private shool subsidy for his kids (unless you know different)?

As for the Military muscians they do have other battlefield tasking so playing a trumpet isnt all they do (no gay gags please from the ex grunts)


Cheers

Brother in the military, gets a very cheap house in a nice part of London, works a few hours a day in a ceremonial position with occasional trips abroad (I would consider him a part time worker if he was in the private sector), hasn’t done any battlefield tasks since his initial training and would not expect to in the future, gets big subsidies for private schooling for his kid even though his wife is at home and could look after them and take them to a local school.

Any links for these kind of benefits?

[JMGS4]

Typical cowardly lying yellowbellied Labour twunts!
They are rightly afraid of the Forces and want them as small as possible so there's no chance that they march on stehall and execute the socialist barstewards. Labour has ALWAYS sold our forces down the drain, once again history repeats itself.
I can't wait for the call by Labour for an Islamic Regiment recruited from all the religious terrorists we have in Britain to go Afghanistan to assist against capitalist repression!!
Feckin Labour should all be executed for treason... if it's no longer on the books then after the revolution we'll bring it back!

[Crusoe]

Halb said:

Any links for these kind of benefits?

UKGov said:

Continuity of Education Allowance (CEA)
Due to our high rates of mobility, boarding school is often the only viable choice for Service children. Families find it an agonising decision – often a decision that they swore never to even consider when their children were younger. Service personnel who claim CEA have to sign a mobility certificate agreeing that they are prepared to move wherever the MOD requests them to. In claiming CEA, a Service person must fully accept that accompanied service is the overriding principle for maintaining their entitlement to the allowance.

The termly rates for CEA 2009-2010 are as follows:

Junior CEA (Day) £2556
Junior CEA (Board) £4338
Senior CEA (Day) £3378
Senior CEA (Board) £5621

Big list of benefits http://www.aff.org.uk/education_childcare.htm#cea

Edited by Crusoe on Wednesday 13th January 12:18

[ferrari spider]

Guam said:

As for the Military muscians they do have other battlefield tasking so playing a trumpet isnt all they do (no gay gags please from the ex grunts)
Cheers

Oh Tom, so it WAS you who i saw running across the field with a stretcher in one hand and bugle in the other

[ferrari spider]

LOL i know that ya old tawt

[dcb]

5unny said:

The days of pretending we are some sort of world policemen are coming to an end.

+1

IMHO, should have ended years ago.

Ok UK was a world power half a century ago, but now
is little more than a small country off the coast
of NW Europe.

Cutting public sector costs in the middle of a deep recession
seems sensible to me, even if we don't fight as many foreign
wars as we used to.

And a few less nuclear bombs, nuclear subs & warships swanning
around the world wouldn't go amiss, too.

[TEKNOPUG]

dcb said:

5unny said:

The days of pretending we are some sort of world policemen are coming to an end.

+1

IMHO, should have ended years ago.

Ok UK was a world power half a century ago, but now
is little more than a small country off the coast
of NW Europe.

Cutting public sector costs in the middle of a deep recession
seems sensible to me, even if we don't fight as many foreign
wars as we used to.

And a few less nuclear bombs, nuclear subs & warships swanning
around the world wouldn't go amiss, too.

+1 regarding policemen, although if that's the case, we really don't need so many troops - a nuclear deterrant and the ability to defend our airspace and waters (as well as launch strategic attacks on others) is still useful.

I like the idea of outsourcing though....mercaneries I think they're called. Worked well for us in the past.

[Halb]

TEKNOPUG said:

+1 regarding policemen, although if that's the case, we really don't need so many troops - a nuclear deterrant and the ability to defend our airspace and waters (as well as launch strategic attacks on others) is still useful.

I like the idea of outsourcing though....mercaneries I think they're called. Worked well for us in the past.

Smaller army yes. It should be there for defending the shores, not US wars.
Outsourcing seems to be the norm in Iraq, will be most likely the way we go. Mercenaries are the 2nd biggest force there.

[Dunk76]

TEKNOPUG said:

dcb said:

5unny said:

The days of pretending we are some sort of world policemen are coming to an end.

+1

IMHO, should have ended years ago.

Ok UK was a world power half a century ago, but now
is little more than a small country off the coast
of NW Europe.

Cutting public sector costs in the middle of a deep recession
seems sensible to me, even if we don't fight as many foreign
wars as we used to.

And a few less nuclear bombs, nuclear subs & warships swanning
around the world wouldn't go amiss, too.

+1 regarding policemen, although if that's the case, we really don't need so many troops - a nuclear deterrant and the ability to defend our airspace and waters (as well as launch strategic attacks on others) is still useful.

I like the idea of outsourcing though....mercaneries I think they're called. Worked well for us in the past.

Frankly it's piss all to do with playing World Police

It's because killing human beings has become so expensive now that nobody can really afford to do it.

Comparison - During WW2, towns or streets would raise public subscriptions to buy Spitfires (cost about £12,000 from memory) - can't really see a provincial town in Sussex finding the £35million required to buy a Typhoon!

Similarly, in 1939 A12 Matilda II infantry tank - arguably the best early war tank - cost a smidge over £11,000. Compared with £4.2million for a Challenger II.

So, either we learn to stop fighting wars, or we simply buy less expensive kit. In truth, we don't need Harriers and Apaches in Afghanistan - CAP could be conducted equally as well using far cheaper/older stuff.

For example; The Douglas A-1 Skyraider, designed in 1946 to replace the P-47 Thunderbolt, carried 8000lb payload... which, curiously, is precisely the same as the current Harrier.

I'd guess the Skyraider, even a redesigned version, would be far cheaper and far more suitable for dropping bombs on bits of Afghanistan than the Harrier is.

ETA:
The other subtle issue is that kit is so expensive now that the Military has to make it (or it's design) last ten, twenty, thirty years - the consequences of which is that we've been engaged in an anti-insurgency operation that our pre-war Imperial army would have been familiar with, but using kit designed for blowing up Commies in West Germany.

Edited by Dunk76 on Wednesday 13th January 13:10

[V88Dicky]

dcb said:

5unny said:

The days of pretending we are some sort of world policemen are coming to an end.

+1

IMHO, should have ended years ago.

Ok UK was a world power half a century ago, but now
is little more than a small country off the coast
of NW Europe.

Cutting public sector costs in the middle of a deep recession
seems sensible to me, even if we don't fight as many foreign
wars as we used to.

And a few less nuclear bombs, nuclear subs & warships swanning
around the world wouldn't go amiss, too.

Can't see why we can't go one step further and get rid of the Armed Forces altogether. Perhaps let the EU take up our defensive duties?