Massive military cuts

[RoboCod]

You have no idea about the military have you.

lol!

 

[RoboCod]

You only need to read any number of books that have been published about the Harrier's time in Afghan to know that 1 or 2 bombs in 6 months is a woeful underestimation. Also UAVs are slow to transit over any sizeable distance and cannot scare the crap out of terry by doing shows of force. Fast air has its place over there, just as Apache, UAVs and artillery do.

To get back on track about the Military cuts I think we need to be cut throat while still retaining as much ability as possible. For example I think all Harrier flying should be axed immediately with a tiny contigent kept serviceable, enough to fill a carrier sounds reasonable. It seems daft that they have no operational role at the moment and they're definitely being scrapped, yet they still have one galavanting around airshows!

I'm going to pee on your parade here. Seen them (UAV) do a show of force - was Funny (with a capital F)

 

[scorza]

You only need to read any number of books that have been published about the Harrier's time in Afghan to know that 1 or 2 bombs in 6 months is a woeful underestimation. Also UAVs are slow to transit over any sizeable distance and cannot scare the crap out of terry by doing shows of force. Fast air has its place over there, just as Apache, UAVs and artillery do.

On a related note, Channel 4 news had a report from a journalist "embedded" with the Taliban (before he got kidnapped lol). The local commanders there said that the only coalition weapon they feared was the AC-130 gunship, which the UK don't have. Given that the Taliban are proving rather good at this war thing, I doubt that a "show of force" is really going to unsettle them that.

 

[-TA-]

the only coalition weapon they feared was the AC-130 gunship

Have they been playing MW2 too much?

 

[Stringy]

On a related note, Channel 4 news had a report from a journalist "embedded" with the Taliban (before he got kidnapped lol). The local commanders there said that the only coalition weapon they feared was the AC-130 gunship, which the UK don't have. Given that the Taliban are proving rather good at this war thing, I doubt that a "show of force" is really going to unsettle them that.

Shows of force do work, fast air scraping their bellies on the ground at maxi-chat will do wonders as a distraction tool and a massive warning letting Terry know that if they continue they're going to get a bomb on the heads.

 

[Andy90]

As said we need to look at what we want and how to best achieve those roles.

Easiest way to save money is get rid of RAF. Both navy and army have air wings. There is no reason Why RAF could not be combined under them. That way you illuminate so much wasted office and supply chains.

Developing your idea we could get rid of the Army too, since The Navy have the Marines... no-ones going anywhere without an Aircraft or Ship to transport them and the Navy have them both.

Seriously quite sad because there are some fine ships and regiments that are going to get scrapped

 

[lemonkettaz]

What is all this going to do for operations in Afghanistan? Are the cuts and streamlining in response to just financial reasons or a mix between trying to make operations easier whilst being sustainable?

Will the cuts look beyond being in Afghan, because supposedly we are leaving in 5years?

 

[scorza]

Have they been playing MW2 too much?

I think they have *actually* been on the receiving end of one a few times.

 

[Deadbeat]

Any chance we can have a "military" section? Sort of like motors, or the sports arena. I get bored of internet heroes swinging their sacks around GD. No offence.

 

[bigredshark]

Personally I think it's about time we stopped pretending we're a military power and started spending and equipping in line with any number of other countries who have perfectly adequate self defence ability for a lot less money...

 

[TBirdUK]

The armed forces are an easy win to cut back on, the general public only sees education, hospitals and benifits - most dont see the protection offered by the ability to bomb another nation, or stop another nation bombing you. Lots of people saying to get rid of the RAF and that it can be done by the army and navy (proven by history and by many other countries that this wont work and a truley independant air force is required so will not waste time on that). Its all to save money and the cost of our security!

All this talk about disbanding the RAF in the 70th anniversary year of the Battle of Britain - shame!

 

[Glaucus]

It's nothing to do with disbanding the RAF, it's moving the RAF resources into Navy/army. Thus using one chain of command, one HR, one Supply chain. Seriously cutting cost with little affect on combat status.

The way modern military works, they are becoming more and more entwined. this is only going to increase as we get a modern battlefield, all data linked and all working together.

 

[TBirdUK]

Moving its resources into the Army & Navy is disbanding. With limited airpower it must remain independant to gain the most out of it - otherwise it becomes an attached unit supporting one area/user at a time - this would require a lot more assets and personnel, costing more, as proven by the way that the US Marines and USAF are used and is why the RAF has remained independant through so many other rounds of cutbacks - in basic principle it always looks like a good idea but has been proven to be completely the opposite every time (as stated earlier siting the Canadians as an example).

 

[Deadbeat]

It's nothing to do with disbanding the RAF, it's moving the RAF resources into Navy/army. Thus using one chain of command, one HR, one Supply chain. Seriously cutting cost with little affect on combat status.

The way modern military works, they are becoming more and more entwined. this is only going to increase as we get a modern battlefield, all data linked and all working together.

Soon the whole show will be run by a spotty 17 year old sitting at a PC in a darkened room, nourished only by Dr Pepper and supermarket own-brand cheese puffs.

 

[j.col]

We need to re-evaluate what we expect from our military, and work out how best to fund it.

That's the discussion that still doesn't seem to be going on

well said

 

[Squark]

As said we need to look at what we want and how to best achieve those roles.

Easiest way to save money is get rid of RAF. Both navy and army have air wings. There is no reason Why RAF could not be combined under them. That way you illuminate so much wasted office and supply chains.

The Fleet Air Arm and the Army Air Corps are both vastly smaller than the RAF have have nowhere near the infrastructure to take over all the RAF's responsibilities

 

[Glaucus]

The Fleet Air Arm and the Army Air Corps are both vastly smaller than the RAF have have nowhere near the infrastructure to take over all the RAF's responsibilities

You add what is need from the RAF, it will still be a lot less than two separate entities.

 

[Stringy]

You add what is need from the RAF, it will still be a lot less than two separate entities.

Surely the argument could just as easily be made in the other direction - after all the Harriers are all based on RAF Stations when not embarked on a carrier and there's not that many Army Air Corps camps, why should the RN and Army have their own aviation logistics setups when the RAF already does it on a mass scale (never mind the fact that doctrinally they are leaps and bounds ahead of the other two and should be weighed up against any supposed cost savings)

 

[Castiel]

The Fleet Air Arm and the Army Air Corps are both vastly smaller than the RAF have have nowhere near the infrastructure to take over all the RAF's responsibilities

Simply retask the neccessary RAF infrastructure, materiel and personnel to the Fleet Air Arm and decommission the rest.

simple.

 

[Glaucus]

Surely the argument could just as easily be made in the other direction - after all the Harriers are all based on RAF Stations when not embarked on a carrier and there's not that many Army Air Corps camps, why should the RN and Army have their own aviation logistics setups when the RAF already does it on a mass scale (never mind the fact that doctrinally they are leaps and bounds ahead of the other two and should be weighed up against any supposed cost savings)

How can it be tasked in the opposite direction? I don't get what you are saying?

Are you saying fit rid of army or navy? That doesn't make much sense.