Massive military cuts

Rameses · 12 Aug 2010 at 18:58

fadetoblack said:
Harriers have now been replaced in afghan by tornado
Also we don't have 408 challenger any more -2 (one was knocked out by a Rpg 29 also there was a blue on blue)
And Jaguar retired years ago

They tired to sell challenger 2s a few years ago but nobody wanted them Australia went refurbished Abrams and Greece went for leopard 2s

Thanks for the correction, but hasn't Gen. Petraeus recently asked for another 2 harriers for an extra 140 hours flight time in Afghan? Unless I'm mistaken for Tornadoes.

Also back to the C2 Tanks, where are the majority kept nowadays? Is it 2 bases here and 1 in Germany?

Rameses · 12 Aug 2010 at 19:01

Castiel said:
The amount of inaccuracies and misunderstanding of what a modern armed force needs in this post scares the hell out of me.

OK, I got the Jaguars mixed up with Tornadoes, and JF's mixed up with Euro F's but what is wrong with what I said?

I'm basically saying I could stomach a small reduction but its already too tight as it is, and reducing/replacing Hercs with a lesser number is only going to strain our ability to snap-to operations as when they are needed.

I'm no military buff thats clear, but what are modern armed force needs then?

fadetoblack · 12 Aug 2010 at 19:16

AmTechFox said:
Thanks for the correction, but hasn't Gen. Petraeus recently asked for another 2 harriers for an extra 140 hours flight time in Afghan? Unless I'm mistaken for Tornadoes.

Also back to the C2 Tanks, where are the majority kept nowadays? Is it 2 bases here and 1 in Germany?

Cattrick is going to be a supergarrison C2 have/are coming up from Germany also most C2 are in storage. We now use a small number for training use between tours.

Stringy · 12 Aug 2010 at 19:30

Castiel said:
The amount of inaccuracies and misunderstanding of what a modern armed force needs in this post scares the hell out of me.

Why does it scare you, is it Liam Fox in disguise? No, it's Joe Public who doesn't understand the armed forces so you could at least point out the inaccuracies and educate him rather than giving a mightier than thou reply.

Castiel · 12 Aug 2010 at 19:31

Stringy said:
Why does it scare you, is it Liam Fox in disguise? No, it's Joe Public who doesn't understand the armed forces so you could at least point out the inaccuracies and educate him rather than giving a mightier than thou reply.

Why?. Take your own advice. :rolleyes:

I'm sure he is able to read the thread, everything he needs to know has already been mentioned.

PlacidCasual · 12 Aug 2010 at 22:34

Whilst persuasive arguments can be made for cutting our armed forces we need to look at our energy security situation. Britain relies on imported gas much of it comes via pipeline from Russia via Norwary or Holland. Much of the rest comes via LNG tanker from the Middle East or Africa. Without significant naval power able to project our will on the high seas we run the risk that countries could hold our energy supplies to ransom. Defence and energy go hand in hand.

Although it is rehashing the past, a future conflict regarding the Falklands could affect Britain's interests further than a few islands dotted with sheep. The exclusive economic zone around the Falklands and South Georgia may possess significant resources that are financially vital to this coutry's future. Without a blue water navy able to defend them at several thousand miles removed from the UK those resources are at risk. Our "closest ally" has already proven perfidous in this regarding siding with Argentina against us. We must maintain our own ability in such things.

etom · 13 Aug 2010 at 05:03

Stringy said:
Why does it scare you, is it Liam Fox in disguise? No, it's Joe Public who doesn't understand the armed forces so you could at least point out the inaccuracies and educate him rather than giving a mightier than thou reply.

they chat rubbish beacuase htey knwo no better better leafve it at that

James J · 13 Aug 2010 at 05:11

etom said:
they chat rubbish beacuase htey knwo no better better leafve it at that

epic post is well, epic?

Personally I think the country needs to take stock at what it actually wants to be in the modern world. We are a tiny nation yet throw so much money into the military due to NATO and UN commitments.

House · 13 Aug 2010 at 05:56

Why doesnt North Korea appear in those tables? it spends 25% of its GDP on the forces and approx 30% of its population are "working" for the armed forces.

Not a path I'd promote just wondering why they aint on the charts posted.

Castiel · 13 Aug 2010 at 07:28

etom said:
they chat rubbish beacuase htey knwo no better better leafve it at that

Do you know any better?

Have you any experience in the Armed Forces in your 21 years?

I would suggest an Adult Education Centre to address your literacy problems before attempting to give such sage advice.

snowball1 · 13 Aug 2010 at 08:13

AmTechFox said:
Thanks for the correction, but hasn't Gen. Petraeus recently asked for another 2 harriers for an extra 140 hours flight time in Afghan? Unless I'm mistaken for Tornadoes.

Also back to the C2 Tanks, where are the majority kept nowadays? Is it 2 bases here and 1 in Germany?

2 Tornadoes from Lossiemouth should have arrived in Kandahar yesterday.

clv101 · 13 Aug 2010 at 09:07

House said:
Why doesnt North Korea appear in those tables? it spends 25% of its GDP on the forces and approx 30% of its population are "working" for the armed forces.

Not a path I'd promote just wondering why they aint on the charts posted.

I was just showing which countries were around 2.5% like us, and which were less than 2%, where we should be.

There are lots of really daft countries who spend even more. For example:

US 4.3%
Chad 6.6%
Israel 7%
Saudi Arabia 8.2%

I think it goes without saying that we don't want to be anything like these countries.

wordy · 13 Aug 2010 at 13:35

I'm of the opinion the best way forward for HM forces would to upgrade the Royal Navy to what is once was: A fully fledged Blue Water Navy with a larger better equipped expeditionary force.

Deploy both QE carriers with full airwings as planned, bring the RFA ships into the Royal Navy, and increase the size and capability of the Royal marines so that they are able to operate with a large degree of autonomy from the British Army.

Von Smallhausen · 13 Aug 2010 at 13:55

Wasn't the Leopard 2 favoured by the UK generals over the Challenger 2 some years back ? Can't recall where I read that now and can't find a link.

clv101 · 13 Aug 2010 at 13:59

wordy said:
I'm of the opinion the best way forward for HM forces would to upgrade the Royal Navy to what is once was: A fully fledged Blue Water Navy with a larger better equipped expeditionary force.

Deploy both QE carriers with full airwings as planned, bring the RFA ships into the Royal Navy, and increase the size and capability of the Royal marines so that they are able to operate with a large degree of autonomy from the British Army.

Okay, and what is cut to achieve that whist reducing the overall MoD budget significantly?

RoboCod · 13 Aug 2010 at 18:09

AcidHell2 said:
It's not rubbish at all. What it's rubbish at doing is recognising different thing of the same type. Say it has a Ferrari f40 in it's data bank, it will be very good at identifying that reliable, as it and try programming it to recognise all cars.

I'm sorry but that just isn't possible yet. Sensors cannot observe and identify vehicles or any kit that easily, especially from 20kft. I understand your theory for tank ID but why bother even investing in any of that kind of technology when we have no enemies steaming round in tanks, they're all in white pickups or on mopeds looking like the local populace.

On topic; the forces are already taking steps to stream line by putting more pressure on fitness requirements. There are too many fatties serving these days which is embarrassing. Four people have been axed from here recently due to lacking fitness. It's good to think that the forces are cutting the less useful aspects I guess

Insanties_birth · 13 Aug 2010 at 18:36

We spend way too much on the army anyway. It's ridiculous spending so much that you can barely even maintain what you've got. After all we don't even have all of our soldiers or planes or ships etc. all go out. I don't particularly see our army as a fixer of problems either with the way things are looking with the world. They seem to go over to war torn places and not quite manage to stop the civil wars or blood shed but still have huge bills and expect us to keep stumping up more. We need a more efficient, more focused army if we're even going to make it viable.

Castiel · 13 Aug 2010 at 19:02

clv101 said:
Okay, and what is cut to achieve that whist reducing the overall MoD budget significantly?

This is GD rather than SC, but without getting into too much detail we could...

Cut the RAF, reduce the Army, create a single unified force with elements of the RAF and Army added to an expanded Royal Navy.

Expand the Marines (better trained and cheaper than Army Infantry) while decreasing overlap and reduce the amount of regimental separation. Increase of tours of duty in combat zones slightly. Cut the insane amount of civil servants in the MOD, which number almost the same as the entire British Army.

Streamline the Command Structure, reduction in the number of Senior Commanders.

Create a civilian Coastguard with full responsiblity for border control, immigration, search and rescue etc, discarding the separate agencies we currently have.

TBirdUK · 13 Aug 2010 at 19:19

Where did you get the idea that the RM are cheaper than the Inf? Why create a coastguard when you are expanding the Navy? Increase the tours of duty in combat zones - dont you think 4-6 months, with some jobs being 6-12 months is enough (+ all the time away in pre deployment prep)?????????????????

Castiel · 13 Aug 2010 at 19:54

TBirdUK said:
Where did you get the idea that the RM are cheaper than the Inf? Why create a coastguard when you are expanding the Navy? Increase the tours of duty in combat zones - dont you think 4-6 months, with some jobs being 6-12 months is enough (+ all the time away in pre deployment prep)?????????????????

Average annual cost of training a Royal Marine Commando is £5500 whereas the annual cost of training an Army Infantryman is £7000.

Average service life of Royal Marine Commando is 12 years, Army Infantryman only 8 years, this leads to significant cost savings across the operational life of a Soldier.

The CoastGuard will take away some of the cost of the Navy and incorporating them into a civilian single agency responsible for all duties currently spread across Border Agency, MCA, HMRC. Moving the fiscal and operational responsibilty of three separate Agencies into a single one.

The US operate a 9 month Tour of Duty. UK Tours of Duty are being reduced to 119 days from Jan 2011, this can be suspended. Currently T/D can be anything from 3-6 months, with four month tours being the optimal.

Most of mine were around the 5-7 month mark.