My opinion? The British Army (Regs) has always been our expeditionary/colonial force and has not adjusted to its new role. I mean... lets be honest here, why do we need the regular army at home - we rather like its presence in foreign bases, but as a rule most nations find it best to send the military overseas. Its like we are running a wierd modern Cardwell system, but without permenant units overseas. If we are gutting the military then lets do it wisely, stop the amalgamations et al. Here is my simple solution to taking it all down a few notches (also this is my thoughts about if we take it to extremes.) Reduce the size of the army, and reform it around three/four REAL Divisions. Do we need so many loggies/signals personel etc? Then after doing that, boost the size of the TA/other part-time forces to do real home defence stuff. Have a small regular army, but excellently equipped wider military in case of a major crisis. This will never happen, but I think that as a whole the country has gutted its military (as Gadge says to 1930s terms), and that all intelligent debate on the matter never happens as too many people don't want to speak out or want to be seen as liberals. The State should protect its citizens. I don't care for many of the additional services, but if it keeps happening, I think we should all start ceading from the Union. United Republic of Cuffleystan. Urrah! Ok... gone off track, but I think a valid point may or may not be in there somewhere.
A mate of mine, a 22yr served bloke (mostly in Intl - so no dummy - apologies to other units!) reckoned several years ago Britain ceased to have an Army per se. By many estimates it should be classed as a 'Defence Force'. Are there official classifications for an Army and a Defence Force? I like the idea of Illustrious or the Ark as a heliport, sound a brilliant solution on many levels but G-HEMS (London Hospital Helicopter) would be too far from it's base I think. You don't have to be Int to be Int mate If they want to save some money disband the TA - There's a white elephant if ever there was one.
From an outsider there are plenty of ways for the British Government to save money, and not force cuts on an already depleated Defense Force. 1) Reduce social benefits. I watched a program on TV a few days ago about the youth of Europe, and in particular Briton. It amazes me to see how much these kids get in benefits for doing nothing. Some kids just said they would get more by sitting at home. If they refuse to work then they have to do charity work instead. Even better get them into the army 2) Get the Premier League players to finance the British Army. They don't need a million Pounds a day to kick a piece of plastic
I'm currently on £80 a week in what I would class as benefits-If they reduced it anymore I'd be paying them Out of curiosity how much did the media say the British people were getting ?
The Labour party (and to be fair the Tories as well) laid, once again, the foundations for later army reductions by creating more LARGE regts. The Rifles, Royal Regt of Scotland, Duke of Lancaster's Regt and Mercians etc. The trick is simple, make larger regts 3/5 bns then when everyone accepts these 2 or 3 years later - cut two Bns from each large regt, remember the Fusiliers, LI, Queen's etc. "nobody misses a slice from a cut loaf" There was once a theory that when these cuts were originally pending, when I were a lad, we should have looked at each Regt and reduced them to company size, retaining all of their traditions, customs, history and of course idiosyncrasies, then if a major war loomed, you could expand each to regimental size on it's company. Or, we could go back to the old numbered system, as it was before Cardwell, then you could expand and contract the army as needed without upsetting county connections or recruiting areas. However, if it were done by seniority the Irish and Welsh Guards would have had to go before the Royal Scots (now 1 Bn RRS) or Queens Regt (now PWRR)! or several other more senior regts, oooh!!! The Paras and SAS could stay, because nobody else does what they do, or maybe wants too! and you never know when you may want to drop something out of the sky to scare the S**T out of someone.
When I was a young man many years ago the Army (and the rest of the Forces) offered one of the best education and training systems for young men (not many women then) who had often been failed by the State system. We still had a presence in the Gulf with some prepositioned equipment that gave regional powers pause for thought. However down the years the procurement equipment has been a profiteering exercise and remains so, we have whittled away our capabilities to where we can no longer really mount a large intervention in areas of strategic interest and now the clarion call is more integration with a European defence force. We need an independent review of or defence requirements, equipoment and capabilities and the political will to implement it. We are at present in a 1930s state - the cupboard is almost bare and the world shows signs of going into another meltdown politically. As well as the defence review the nation needs to reinvest in our engineering base so we will have a base from where to rearm if necessary.
I'm currently on £80 a week in what I would class as benefits-If they reduced it anymore I'd be paying them Out of curiosity how much did the media say the British people were getting ? The program was on Russian TV (yes, we get that on satellite ) The figure they gave was ± £400 per month. In Rand terms that's far more than minimum wages, which is no wonder the kids arn't motivated to go and find work. One kid in Newcastle (I think) said he was quite happy to sit at home and play video games all day and go out at night with his mates.
They don't get that much - No wonder so many people want to come to this country if thats what the foreign media are telling the world. I don't even think teenagers are allowed to claim job seekers allowance and thats only £60 ish a week.
They don't get that much - No wonder so many people want to come to this country if thats what the foreign media are telling the world. I don't even think teenagers are allowed to claim job seekers allowance and thats only £60 ish a week. lies, damn lies and statistics JSA for a single person is changed annually, and at June 29, 2009 the maximum payable was £65.45 per week for a person aged over 25, £51.85 per week for a person aged 18–24
Like everything mate: Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see so there are no defense cuts then?
Hello we have plenty of ways to raise money..Just ask the transport minister how he keeps his..id love to be in it together with him...privatise all ambulance and paramedic services to lowest bidder would be a good start.
And bugger me..Isay then pm announces it..all public services to be put out to tender apart from mil and judiciary..prefferbally local or charittable..the govt will no longer allow a monopoly of public services..drew..your going to be working for serco..i dont see any probs apart from why they should pay current rates when a redundant nurse can soon be trained up even an ec nurse from latvia on min wage...now theres value for money...im all for it..go dave go...
Ah soon anyone joining the Army will have to pay for basic training to bring them into line with University Tuition fees, and their potential future earning as 'Contractors' for the US, UN, EEC etc. etc. 2020 Slavery reintroduced by big banks for students unable to repay tuition fees.
Info from the MOD following a Freedom of info request All data for this publication are taken from the Joint Personnel Administration (JPA) system. Due to ongoing validation of data from this system, all location data are currently provisional, out of scope of National Statistics and subject to review. The UK Regular strength has fallen by 1.9% from 190,820 at 1st January 2010 to 187,240 at 1st January 2011. The UK Regular strength stationed in the United Kingdom has fallen by 1.7% from 165,230 at 1st January 2010 to 162,390 at 1st January 2011. Mr Clegg “There is currently one civilian at the ministry of defence for every two men or women in uniform, 800 of them alone are working in media and communications. This is the highest ratio of civilian to uniform staff in Nato. We will cut back, over two years, the number of civilian staff by 15 per cent.” Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat leader, 26 April 2009 At the start of April 2009 (the latest statistics that are available), there were 86,600 civilian staff employed by the MOD, roughly half the number of personnel in the armed forces – so the 15 per cent that the Liberal Democrats want to reduce this number by would amount to just short of 13,000 staff. Says it all really Note In the same interview with Nick Clegg the MOD stated they had already reduced their civilian manpower by 45,000 in the previous 10 years (The Regular strength of the Armed Forces had grown slightly in that time after years of under manning)
Navy cuts will put lives at risk, warn Forces chiefs The scrapping of the Harriers and aircraft carrier Ark Royal means Britain can no longer carry out amphibious operations without putting troops’ lives at “considerable risk”, senior officers and defence experts have warned the Prime Minster. 400 227 TelegraphPlayer-8340384 Link to this video By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent 9:30PM GMT 24 Feb 2011 Comment In a private letter, passed to The Daily Telegraph, the former Navy and Army chiefs warn the Prime Minister that there are serious flaws in last October's defence review. The scrapping of the Royal Navy's Harrier fleet, in particular, has "profound consequences" that "strike at the heart of our Defence structure", they say. The authors, who include Field Marshal Lord Bramall, the former head of the Armed Forces, as well as six retired admirals and three generals, say the move undermines the Navy's ability to protect the Army or Royal Marines on amphibious operations. These can no longer be attempted against "even a lightly armed aggressor" without "considerable risk" to the safety of soldiers, they say. The letter's authors include Lt Gen Sir Hew Pike, the decorated Parachute Regiment officer, Maj Gen Julian Thompson, the Falklands commander, Admiral Sir Jeremy Black, who commanded the aircraft carrier Invincible in the Falklands, and Prof Nicholas Rodger, an Oxford academic. Related Articles 'We can't fight another Falklands' 02 Apr 2002 Defence review: a quarter of civilian posts to be cut at MoD 20 Oct 2010 MoD's 'cycle of failure' risks lives 22 Feb 2011 They recommend a "rapid re-evaluation" of last year's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), which they warn was "unduly trusting in an uncertain, fast-moving and dangerous world". Under the terms of the SDSR, the 70-strong fleet of Harriers will be scrapped or sold this year, while Ark Royal, the flagship of the Royal Navy, will be decommissioned and probably turned into a London heliport. Harriers are particularly crucial on amphibious operations as they provide the best close air support for ground troops. The review, which also resulted in the destruction of the Nimrod surveillance fleet, was ordered as part of government spending cuts which saw 7.5 per cent slashed from the annual £37 billion defence budget. There is growing controversy over the scale of the cuts, particularly in light of the chaos enveloping the Middle East and the crisis in Libya, where hundreds of Britons have been trapped for several days. Last night, Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, added his voice to those calling for the SDSR to be reopened. He said it already looked "out of date" and that many of the assumptions about it had been "shaken over the past month". "Recent dramatic events mean that the defence review must be reopened and perhaps even rethought," Mr Murphy said. "It would be sensible to stop and reflect again on our nation's strategic defence needs." The letter to Mr Cameron highlights the dangers to national security of scrapping so much of Britain's defence capability at a time of global uncertainty. It warns of the "downstream consequences that strike at the heart of our Defence structure" by scrapping the force of 70 Harrier GR7 and GR9s that are the most advanced close air support available to British forces. "This undermines support of the Army and of the Royal Marines in their amphibious role. This valuable operation can no longer be attempted even against a lightly armed aggressor without considerable risk." The signatories argue that the review “led to a very rapid and radical disposal of assets, which, more alarmingly, has demanded the loss of some core strategic capabilities”. “In our carefully considered view, it is in this latter respect that, in certain key areas, the decisions now about to be implemented merit rapid re-evaluation to avoid the potentially permanent loss of important military capabilities.” The letter claims that £5 billion could be saved by keeping a small force of 40 Harriers and a similar number of the much more costly Tornados. “Defence in peace means deterrence by showing capability and determination. Failure to do so leads to war,” the letter warns. Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, said: “Difficult decisions had to be taken to tackle the £38 billion deficit left by Labour at the Ministry of Defence and the SDSR will not be reopened.” The Government has been accused of “staggering complacency” over the view expressed in the SDSR, which said: “In the short term, there are few circumstances we can envisage where the ability to deploy air power from the sea will be essential.” Naval commanders say the short-sightedness of scrapping Ark Royal and the Harrier becom es more apparent by the day as North Africa destabilises. During the evacuation of Lebanon in 2006, Navy jets made low passes over guerrilla positions which “quickly scared them off”, an officer involved said. Similarly, Harriers were used as a “show of force” during the Sierra Leone crisis in 2000 and frightened off rebels. “Unless our coalition partners can provide carrier strike then we would not be able to provide adequate protection to our troops,” a senior Navy officer said. Cdr John Muxworthy, of the UK National Defence Association, said: “It cannot be lost on our enemies around the world, who will be watching the British Government’s feeble response to the Libya crisis with mounting glee. “After all, they will reason, if this is the best Britain can do now, how will the British cope next year when their Armed Forces are even smaller?” The letter also points out that, by changing guidelines dictating the length of rest between operational tours, the Forces could generate more manpower. The letter was also sent to the Defence Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and the chairman of the Commons defence committee. Navy cuts will put lives at risk, warn Forces chiefs - Telegraph
British forces would struggle to mount small military intervention, claim officers British forces would struggle to mount even a small scale military intervention as the cupboard for resources was “threadbare”, senior officers have said. The Army has only one battalion on standby for emergency operations Photo: REUTERS By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent 4:30PM GMT 25 Feb 2011 55 Comments They have also warned that the chances of an operation to rescue civilians from a conflict like Libya would become remote in the coming months as more and more equipment is pushed out of service under defence cuts. Their comments come after Forces chiefs warned the Prime Minister that cuts to Harrier jets and aircraft carrier Ark Royal would put personnel at “considerable risk”, in a letter passed to The Daily Telegraph. The Army has only one battalion on standby for emergency operations called the Spearhead Lead Element and this is said to be struggling to get the correct equipment for training. With most of 3 Commando Brigade deploying to Helmand in the coming weeks the only amphibious unit left behind is 40 Commando which is still recovering from an extremely tough tour of Sangin in Helmand last summer. The enduring operation in Afghanistan, with 10,000 troops committed, also means that the Forces have very few “enablers” who help with logistics and other key areas. Serving Navy officers believe that the Libyan emergency highlights how depleted the Forces will become after the cuts have taken hold. This year the fleet will lose four Type 22 frigates including Cumberland that helped evacuate some British citizens. But in addition to the loss of its flagship Ark Royal and the Harriers the Navy’s amphibious force will be cut in half by the mothballing of the landing ship Bulwark and other craft. “We have cut our cloth very small and if we bit off more than we could chew we would be in trouble,” said one officer. “We certainly could not do an operation like Sierra Leone again because we have no fast jets. Even to achieve and sustain a foothold ashore would be difficult.” Another senior Navy officer said an operation could be “sustained for a few days only”. “We just don’t have anymore any protection against the unexpected which is always bound to happen.” “The locker is not just empty it’s completely threadbare.” Britain would also face a much better equipped military than the Taliban as Libya has Mirage fast jets, fast missile boats, warships, advanced surface to air missiles and tanks. Questions are also being asked about the Government’s destruction of the Nimrod fleet that would have been effective in the current situation. A former Nimrod pilot, still serving in the RAF, said the aircraft would have been “perfect” for monitoring the situation from a safe distance use its electro-optical sensor. It electronic intelligence and secure radio systems would have been “invaluable in minimising risk” and it was able to remain 15 hours over the area. An Army officer recently returned from Afghanistan said: “If we have to go in there unilaterally that’s where things become difficult because without Harrier we have no decent close air support which means we are more vulnerable.” There is also a question mark over whether the air force would be allowed to use the air base in Cyprus for offensive operations. Malta, which is the nearest island to Libya, has a civilian airstrip that is unsuitable for the RAF’s Tornado and Typhoon aircraft, defence experts British forces would struggle to mount small military intervention, claim officers - Telegraph
