RAF cut to smallest size since 1914
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...
One fighter base and one fighter base only.
Merging the Parachute Regt with the Royal Marines.
Scrapping all Tornados.
Makes you sad to be British.
One fighter base and one fighter base only.
Merging the Parachute Regt with the Royal Marines.
Scrapping all Tornados.
Makes you sad to be British.
Imagine germany (or another nation with a) desire to plant their flag in our soil again, for that matter
what would happen.
I would think a different outcome.
What will replace the Tornado?
But there is an increase in infantry troops, so we are ok. But scrapping 36 hercs for 22 440s, will we have enough planes to fly the fallen home due to cuts.
I feel we sould adopt an American attitude to our service men and women, they have the total support of the civilians and Government.
Old planes are kept in ready for battle states, ex servicemen are honoured.
Yea, mad isnt it.
what would happen.
I would think a different outcome.
What will replace the Tornado?
But there is an increase in infantry troops, so we are ok. But scrapping 36 hercs for 22 440s, will we have enough planes to fly the fallen home due to cuts.
I feel we sould adopt an American attitude to our service men and women, they have the total support of the civilians and Government.
Old planes are kept in ready for battle states, ex servicemen are honoured.
Yea, mad isnt it.
Edited by XG332 on Friday 6th August 23:50
telegraph said:
The Telegraph has also learnt that the “black hole” in MoD finances, caused by orders which have been made but cannot be paid for, is approaching £72 billion over the next decade
Is that actually a word? Re: the topic, I can't decide if it's sad or just realistic (which wouldn't make it any less sad if you're into military history). Under Blair, I kind of got the impression that the intention was to make the UK the power that Europe came to when it needed troops, and the only power the US neeeded to sway in Europe when it needed an ally. Regarding the airforce, especially, I can't think of a situation where NATO aircraft couldn't be used in the protection of UK airspace should Russia (surely the only possible threat) try anything.
Edited by glazbagun on Friday 6th August 23:54
glazbagun said:
telegraph said:
The Telegraph has also learnt that the “black hole” in MoD finances, caused by orders which have been made but cannot be paid for, is approaching £72 billion over the next decade
Is that actually a word? Re: the topic, I can't decide if it's sad or just realistic (which wouldn't make it any less sad if you're into military history). Under Blair, I kind of got the impression that the intention was to make the UK the power that Europe came to when it needed troops, and the only power the US neeeded to sway in Europe when it needed an ally. Regarding the airforce, especially, I can't think of a situation where NATO aircraft couldn't be used in the protection of UK airspace should Russia (surely the only possible threat) try anything.
Edited by glazbagun on Friday 6th August 23:54
"learned" is used in phrases such as "a learned professor", in which case it is pronounced with two syllables.
Either "learnt" or "learned" are used interchangably in phrases like "I learnt a valuable lesson today".
topic.
We're broke. it's sad to see the Tornado go, but it's hardly a new airframe.
Take it with a pinch of salt. In fact take it with one of these
Considering the RAF didn't even exist in 1914, it's perhaps not as bad as Harding suggests. Even at the end of 1914 the RFC barely had 100 aircraft of all sorts to rub together. Not to mention that at one point in the 1920s it had only one squadron of fighters. And it's a long time since the RAF was ever the fifth largest Air Force in the world.
As for the so called detailed proposals (funny how often the media get a hold of these documents):
Tornado GR4 to be canned entirely
Fairly unlikly considering Harrier is pretty shagged out with only 2 squadrons and 12 (i.e. most) FAA pilots on US exchange. Typhoon is busy sorting out replacing Tornado F3 as it is.
Typhoon buy to be reduced to 107 aircraft based at a single station
Nimrod MRA4 looking "vulnerable"
When hasn't MRA4 looked vulnerable over the past 5 years?
Hercules fleet to be replaced by 22 A400Ms
That is just disingenuous. The C130Ks are on the wait out anyway while the Js will continue alongside the A400Ms (because we won't be getting them all at once).
Frankly, I'm surprised the Telegraph didn't throw in "Red Arrows to be disbanded" for good measure. About the only accurate sentence in that article is "The MoD hopes that once voters realise the scale of the cuts to the Armed Forces, George Osborne, the Chancellor, may spare some parts of the military."
Considering the RAF didn't even exist in 1914, it's perhaps not as bad as Harding suggests. Even at the end of 1914 the RFC barely had 100 aircraft of all sorts to rub together. Not to mention that at one point in the 1920s it had only one squadron of fighters. And it's a long time since the RAF was ever the fifth largest Air Force in the world.
As for the so called detailed proposals (funny how often the media get a hold of these documents):
Tornado GR4 to be canned entirely
Fairly unlikly considering Harrier is pretty shagged out with only 2 squadrons and 12 (i.e. most) FAA pilots on US exchange. Typhoon is busy sorting out replacing Tornado F3 as it is.
Typhoon buy to be reduced to 107 aircraft based at a single station
Nimrod MRA4 looking "vulnerable"
When hasn't MRA4 looked vulnerable over the past 5 years?
Hercules fleet to be replaced by 22 A400Ms
That is just disingenuous. The C130Ks are on the wait out anyway while the Js will continue alongside the A400Ms (because we won't be getting them all at once).
Frankly, I'm surprised the Telegraph didn't throw in "Red Arrows to be disbanded" for good measure. About the only accurate sentence in that article is "The MoD hopes that once voters realise the scale of the cuts to the Armed Forces, George Osborne, the Chancellor, may spare some parts of the military."
I think there should be a law that for every £5 spent on the NHS and £5 spent on the welfare budget, £4 should be spent on Defence - maybe that will restore the perverted imbalance between what this country is spending in indulging itself and what it should do to prepare for any eventuality.
Couple such a spending ratio with decimation of the MOD bureaucracy, fix the procurement nightmare that gets us nothing but disaster after disaster, and a shake-up of the old farts at the top of the chain-of-command (the ones who refused to replace snatch landrover because they wanted their FRES toy, the ones who efucse to learn lessons until men are dying, the ones who won't stand up to the politicians and the accountants, the ones who care more for their peerages and pensions than the men they [u]lead[/u]) - and most of all conscript not the benefit scroungers but the sons and daughters of MPs and send them to Afghanistan, then we might have a decent defence and security for the future.
Couple such a spending ratio with decimation of the MOD bureaucracy, fix the procurement nightmare that gets us nothing but disaster after disaster, and a shake-up of the old farts at the top of the chain-of-command (the ones who refused to replace snatch landrover because they wanted their FRES toy, the ones who efucse to learn lessons until men are dying, the ones who won't stand up to the politicians and the accountants, the ones who care more for their peerages and pensions than the men they [u]lead[/u]) - and most of all conscript not the benefit scroungers but the sons and daughters of MPs and send them to Afghanistan, then we might have a decent defence and security for the future.
PaulHogan said:
Who, EXACTLY, do you think is going to invade?
Exactly.I'd rather have the massive tax cuts (or more accurately reduced
future rises) than all sorts of big boy's toys that
I am struggling to find a useful purpose for, beyond buying
votes in some Northern constituencies.
The UK isn't a world leader anymore, we are short of money.
Time to be realistic and cut defence.
glazbagun said:
Regarding the airforce, especially, I can't think of a situation where NATO aircraft couldn't be used in the protection of UK airspace should Russia (surely the only possible threat) try anything. [/footnote]
Most likely because, as history shows, Britain cannot rely on Europe for anything. dcb said:
PaulHogan said:
Who, EXACTLY, do you think is going to invade?
Exactly.I'd rather have the massive tax cuts (or more accurately reduced
future rises) than all sorts of big boy's toys that
I am struggling to find a useful purpose for, beyond buying
votes in some Northern constituencies.
The UK isn't a world leader anymore, we are short of money.
Time to be realistic and cut defence.
Furthermore you mention tax cuts - to fund these, cuts surely should fall first and hardest on those areas which had the most increases and increases in defence spending have been modest, in fact the military always seem to go the furthest in more or less meekly accepting efficiency measures cooked up by accountants, civil servants and politicians even in recent years, while the NHS and other areas have had money thrown at them almost indiscriminately. The military has been let down by top brass not having the balls to ask for the right kit for the job, so it's been twice as expensive to buy in a hurry, while they hang on to the big projects which are crappily run and overbudget. Modest defence spending increases have therefore been swallowed by operations (ok some of it is funded from the treasury but not all such as replacing worn out kit) cost overruns on big projects and defence industry inflation. Overall it's a shabby picutre made shabbier by the insistence that while men and women are sweating and bleeding in Afghanistan, the military is expected to bear as much of a cut as the NHS, with meaningless cuts int he gargantuan benefits bill. After all a striking soldier is a mutinous soldier and can be punished, whereas a striking teacher or nurse cannot.
PaulHogan said:
Elroy Blue said:
...putting our national security at risk is another.
Who, EXACTLY, do you think is going to invade?Most of these weapons programmes have years and years to pass through R&D to actually being ready for combat.
This is nothing new and, at a time when planes were far less advanced, it took nearly a decade for the Spitfire to develop from the early prototypes to the production line model in mid 1938.
cut overseas aid by 4 billion and benefits bill by 5 billion that pays for defence job done and easy to do. dont really think china and india need our money now and if its just bribes for contracts then let defence have a bigger cut of those contracts.
that and charge the yanks more for the airbases they use ( maybe £9 fee every time they fly in and out...)
that and charge the yanks more for the airbases they use ( maybe £9 fee every time they fly in and out...)
If they take big cuts they should bring back every single forces personel from Afghanistan and the Falklands and everywhere else they are deployed immediately. Not 2015 or 2014, but within a month or two.
Not going to put in the support they need? Bring them home immediately. Bring them all out via Pakistan if needs be and fly and ship every single bit of our stuff back by the end of the year or before.
As a country we cant ask these men and women to go out and risk life and limb then utterly fail to support them and gut the military in the process.
We need air transport to support our troops,we need fighters like typhoon to support those transports, after all I wouldnt want to be the poor guys in a Hercules going up against any sort of fighting aircraft, we need ground attack aircraft to support the troops on ground, we want a nuclear deterrant to protect those troops and our country from attack yet we arent willing to fund the MRA4 needed to allow them to operate properly. All three services as much as they hate it do rely on each other and each aspect of the military relies on other aspects.
The Hercules Ks are as old as my dad, the Pumas came into service in the early 1970s.
Its not the funding that is the problem, we spend a lot on defence. The money isnt spent where it is needed. Abbey Wood and Whitehall the two main MOD civil service places are very very well furnished and Abbey wood has a lovely landscaped pond with geese and park benches and a fancy bridge over the road in from the carparks and expensive swivel chairs so civil servants dont get a sore back while looking at their expensive monitors. Most of the money simply disappears into projects that never materialise or are supersceded by another list of specifications after the money is spent time and time again before the product reaches the front line.
Anyway we do have a big airforce, although a lot of roles are now done by private contractors under PFI deals made by labour. Scrap the GR4s and we pay for all the PFI aspects of training until 2031. VT aerospace and Serco and all the others must be laughing their heads off. We may be having to scrap the airplanes to pay for the training for them. All the paintshops are civvy now, PTIs are going civvy, RAF catering personnel are working for Serco run Messes that provide less yet charge more than how messes used to be. If they could get all trades as civvy they would, they can then pay more and get less.
Its nonesense.
We spend the money leasing C17s that would have covered purchasing them, and then we pay the purchasing price. We order a lot of A400ms, we pay for a lot of A400ms and then we get less than what we pay for. You wouldnt go into tescos, pay for 6 cans of beer and be happy if you only get 4 because the beer cost more to make than expected.
We are getting a contract with air tanker that states we cannot use any other air to air tankers yet one of the reasons we bought A400m is because it can do AAR, yet this piece of paper wont let us use it like that.
Type 45 destroyers, we ordered them based on a cost price for the minimum number of them that we need. We are getting less than needed and promised (we had to get rid of ships so we could get the Type 45), so now because we are getting less than the amount we needed they cost far far more per unit to barely give us enough capability. The whole reason for the ship is to provide anti aircraft and anti missile protection to our other ships so of course the ship is entering service and will sail without missiles. Yes ships are getting more able but the oceans are large places and a ship cant be in two places at once.
It has gotten beyond belief. All our purchasing needs suspended and the whole military needs restructuring top to bottom. Descisions need to be made now for 25 years in the future not deciding that we dont need fast jets, tanks or more ships because we are fighting a war in the desert against the people we taught and armed in the 80s as allies.
Not going to put in the support they need? Bring them home immediately. Bring them all out via Pakistan if needs be and fly and ship every single bit of our stuff back by the end of the year or before.
As a country we cant ask these men and women to go out and risk life and limb then utterly fail to support them and gut the military in the process.
We need air transport to support our troops,we need fighters like typhoon to support those transports, after all I wouldnt want to be the poor guys in a Hercules going up against any sort of fighting aircraft, we need ground attack aircraft to support the troops on ground, we want a nuclear deterrant to protect those troops and our country from attack yet we arent willing to fund the MRA4 needed to allow them to operate properly. All three services as much as they hate it do rely on each other and each aspect of the military relies on other aspects.
The Hercules Ks are as old as my dad, the Pumas came into service in the early 1970s.
Its not the funding that is the problem, we spend a lot on defence. The money isnt spent where it is needed. Abbey Wood and Whitehall the two main MOD civil service places are very very well furnished and Abbey wood has a lovely landscaped pond with geese and park benches and a fancy bridge over the road in from the carparks and expensive swivel chairs so civil servants dont get a sore back while looking at their expensive monitors. Most of the money simply disappears into projects that never materialise or are supersceded by another list of specifications after the money is spent time and time again before the product reaches the front line.
Anyway we do have a big airforce, although a lot of roles are now done by private contractors under PFI deals made by labour. Scrap the GR4s and we pay for all the PFI aspects of training until 2031. VT aerospace and Serco and all the others must be laughing their heads off. We may be having to scrap the airplanes to pay for the training for them. All the paintshops are civvy now, PTIs are going civvy, RAF catering personnel are working for Serco run Messes that provide less yet charge more than how messes used to be. If they could get all trades as civvy they would, they can then pay more and get less.
Its nonesense.
We spend the money leasing C17s that would have covered purchasing them, and then we pay the purchasing price. We order a lot of A400ms, we pay for a lot of A400ms and then we get less than what we pay for. You wouldnt go into tescos, pay for 6 cans of beer and be happy if you only get 4 because the beer cost more to make than expected.
We are getting a contract with air tanker that states we cannot use any other air to air tankers yet one of the reasons we bought A400m is because it can do AAR, yet this piece of paper wont let us use it like that.
Type 45 destroyers, we ordered them based on a cost price for the minimum number of them that we need. We are getting less than needed and promised (we had to get rid of ships so we could get the Type 45), so now because we are getting less than the amount we needed they cost far far more per unit to barely give us enough capability. The whole reason for the ship is to provide anti aircraft and anti missile protection to our other ships so of course the ship is entering service and will sail without missiles. Yes ships are getting more able but the oceans are large places and a ship cant be in two places at once.
It has gotten beyond belief. All our purchasing needs suspended and the whole military needs restructuring top to bottom. Descisions need to be made now for 25 years in the future not deciding that we dont need fast jets, tanks or more ships because we are fighting a war in the desert against the people we taught and armed in the 80s as allies.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff