Defence cuts already haunting the Govt

[Thedelldays]

The first sea lord having dig.

Saying we can't sustain being off Libya for any longer than 6 months due to cuts and make commitments else where.

 

Also made the point that the ark royal and the harriers would have saved a shed load of money jf they were used. Basically, the savings could have paid for the ship and some.

 

Never understand various governments, now and more so under the last lot. They allow the forces to get smaller but they very rarely adjust the commitments set

[Verbal]

Doesn't this count as useful information to an enemy?

[doddisalegend]

The first sea lord having dig.

Saying we can't sustain being off Libya for any longer than 6 months due to cuts and make commitments else where.

 

Also made the point that the ark royal and the harriers would have saved a shed load of money jf they were used. Basically, the savings could have paid for the ship and some.

 

Never understand various governments, now and more so under the last lot. They allow the forces to get smaller but they very rarely adjust the commitments set

 

It's hardly a surprise since the creation of a British army in 1707, British goverments have always tried to get the most out of the armed forces for as little cost as possible. The British empire was built on a shoestring budget. The only time British goverments will really spend on the armed forces is if this sceptred isle is under direct threat of invasion. Has always been and always will be the way.

 

The big difference is that up until WW2 the Navy was first in line for resources now they seem to third in line. The end of the cold war means the Navy doesn't have anyone to fight in the way it used to.

[aintforever]

Best way to save money is to keep our nose out of other people's affairs.

[alpine_saint]

The first sea lord having dig.

Saying we can't sustain being off Libya for any longer than 6 months due to cuts and make commitments else where.

 

Also made the point that the ark royal and the harriers would have saved a shed load of money jf they were used. Basically, the savings could have paid for the ship and some.

 

Never understand various governments, now and more so under the last lot. They allow the forces to get smaller but they very rarely adjust the commitments set

 

British government have made the pursuit of saving money turning a net cost for the country into an art form...

 

Even Thailand has more operational aircraft carriers than us.

 

A total embarassment, along with the news that came out this week that the Fleet Air Arm is dependent on an exchange program with the French Navy, and our pilots flying Rafales to keep up our training and experience in carrier operations until the Queen Elizabeth is ready.

 

I STILL think those 2 carriers will never enter service.

[Thedelldays]

Our armed forces are slowly (thanks to the powers at be) turning into a shambles

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Either we decide to fund the capability that we want or we match our capability to what we can afford.

[doddisalegend]

Our armed forces are slowly (thanks to the powers at be) turning into a shambles

 

Thing is they've always been a shambles not the lads (and lasses) themselves but the way they are funded and looked after by goverment. British armed forces have through out their history achieved great things despite the goverment not becuase of it.

[revolution saint]

The first sea lord having dig.

Saying we can't sustain being off Libya for any longer than 6 months due to cuts and make commitments else where.

 

Also made the point that the ark royal and the harriers would have saved a shed load of money jf they were used. Basically, the savings could have paid for the ship and some.

 

Never understand various governments, now and more so under the last lot. They allow the forces to get smaller but they very rarely adjust the commitments set

 

I'm not condoning this at all but this is exactly what most of the public sector is saying. The police, education (NHS is slightly different) but everyone is saying the same thing - you can't expect to do more with less. The common (mis)conception is that we can achieve cuts and produce the same or better performance by cutting out waste - that's not the case and in my experience the waste is at senior management levels anyway, and as they hold the purse strings they're unlikely to be touched. I'm sure that's as true in the MOD as it is in the rest of the public sector.

[um pahars]

I'm not condoning this at all but this is exactly what most of the public sector is saying. The police, education (NHS is slightly different) but everyone is saying the same thing - you can't expect to do more with less. The common (mis)conception is that we can achieve cuts and produce the same or better performance by cutting out waste - that's not the case and in my experience the waste is at senior management levels anyway, and as they hold the purse strings they're unlikely to be touched. I'm sure that's as true in the MOD as it is in the rest of the public sector.

 

A very interesting comparison. Many have attacked the "profligate" Public Sector and held up cases of waste in order to lambast them and I'm sure you could go digging for the many cost overruns on a number of defense projects and hold them up in a comparable fashion.

 

But the undelrying tenet is as you and others have said, you can't expect the same for less (although I accept any waste needs to be eradicated) and eventually there will have to be a substantive change in the service on offer. In this instance we simply cannot afford to be flexing our muscle in support of NATO/UN/USA.

 

Defence spending needs to be trimmed, but at the same time we have to accept that the role we play and our capabilities will have to be trimmed as well.

[alpine_saint]

A link to make you weep....

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003673/Falklands-War-hero-HMS-Invincible-goes-knackers-yard.html

[lumuah]

All of our Harriers have been sold... for £34m to the USA - Less than £1m a plane!!!!!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8576541/Harrier-jump-jets-sold-for-peanuts.html

 

And now apparently America refer to the Falklands as the Malvinas if you believe this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8571442/Britain-can-do-nothing-to-prevent-Argentina-retaking-Falkland-Islands.html

 

It would seem that Argentina are more important to the USA than the UK, and so won't help us out like they did last time.

[dune]

My biggest concern with the defence cuts is the potential for humiliation in the future.

 

One day we may need a strong navy to defend one of our overseas possessions - The Falklands or Gibraltar.

[Thedelldays]

if we really wanted to preserve self interest only in the forces, rather than "flex" our muscles....then why oh why is the RN right at the bottom of the list of importance..we are an island nation. 95% of our trade is done around the world via the ocean.....ffs

[dune]

if we really wanted to preserve self interest only in the forces, rather than "flex" our muscles....then why oh why is the RN right at the bottom of the list of importance..we are an island nation. 95% of our trade is done around the world via the ocean.....ffs

 

I agree.

[View From The Top]

if we really wanted to preserve self interest only in the forces, rather than "flex" our muscles....then why oh why is the RN right at the bottom of the list of importance..we are an island nation. 95% of our trade is done around the world via the ocean.....ffs

 

I obviously agree being ex-RN but the crux is that the powers to be need to understand that if they want us to be a big player then it doesn't come cheap.

 

I would suggest that the majority of the UK would be more than happy if we didn't stick our oar in across the globe and maintained HM Forces suitable for protecting us and working with NATO as an equal partner instead of carrying much of the burden as we do now.

[doddisalegend]

My biggest concern with the defence cuts is the potential for humiliation in the future.

 

One day we may need a strong navy to defend one of our overseas possessions - The Falklands or Gibraltar.

 

It would be cheaper just to give them away........ The days of empire building are over we no longer need a massive navy to enforce our will across the world. The world has changed it's no longer a case of sending a gunboat down to some third world dump to force them to do our bidding. Empires comes and go Britain has had it's time in the sun and departed hope and despair through it in equal measure. The world is a changed place there is no room for empires any more, certainly not a British one, and with it the need to employ a massive world spanning navy is gone to.

 

I find it odd that you'd be happy to spend a load of money to have fleet of warships sat in port in case we fall out with spain, yet the thought of giving money to stop the worlds poorest children from dying gets you upset.

[View From The Top]

If the Argies wanted to take the Falklands we would be powerless to stop them. Yes the standing forces would offer some resistance they'd be over run and once dug in we would lack the assets to dislodge them.

[ecuk268]

I find it odd that you'd be happy to spend a load of money to have fleet of warships sat in port in case we fall out with spain, yet the thought of giving money to stop the worlds poorest children from dying gets you upset.

 

Not to mention our non-independant nuclear non-deterrent which is costing god knows how much for little benefit.

[alpine_saint]

It would be cheaper just to give them away........ The days of empire building are over we no longer need a massive navy to enforce our will across the world. The world has changed it's no longer a case of sending a gunboat down to some third world dump to force them to do our bidding. Empires comes and go Britain has had it's time in the sun and departed hope and despair through it in equal measure. The world is a changed place there is no room for empires any more, certainly not a British one, and with it the need to employ a massive world spanning navy is gone to.

 

 

Those two places are populated by British citizens who have a right to expect to be protected by their country. Their rights are also enshrined in the UN Charter.

 

Nice to see you take your citizenship and freedom so for granted that you would deny it to others.

[Thedelldays]

Not to mention our non-independant nuclear non-deterrent which is costing god knows how much for little benefit.

 

what the hell are you on about...non independant..?

[1976_Child]

All the crap going on in the world and all the willy-waving by Cameron about diving in to 'sort it out' and yet he has slashed the MoD budget. What a plonker.

 

For some reason I am reminded of the late 1930s when Churchill was banging the drum for rearmament but no one else was listening. Now that we are well past peak oil and more and more people are waking up to the fact that energy security is going to define international politics over the next generation we need a strong military and most of all we need lots and lots of RN ships. Might even help to reduce the unemployment situation in Poopey. Get the press gangs out and about. To reduce the RN at a time like this is just plain crazy.

[dune]

Not to mention our non-independant nuclear non-deterrent which is costing god knows how much for little benefit.

 

It's a detterent and it is extremely valuable. Also while we have Nukes we will always sit at the top table when it comes to global affairs.

[mack rill]

Dulldays no good you bleating about it The Fleet is up the scrappys, Take your P45 and walk!

[1976_Child]

It's a detterent and it is extremely valuable. Also while we have Nukes we will always sit at the top table when it comes to global affairs.

 

I agree, but just to play devil's advocate, do Pakistan and India have permanent seats on the UN security council? Nah. But they have the bomb.

 

Anyone who wants to chuck Trident is not thinking straight. Knowing there is a sub 'somewhere out there' ready to retaliate if need be makes me sleep better at night.

[Saintandy666]

what the hell are you on about...non independant..?

 

We would have no nuclear weapons programme without US help. It's also pretty expensive, if you want more warships and so on, then maybe the government should think of scrapping that. We can't just keep spending more and more money on defence. I think we are far too nostalgic on here, people need to accept we aren't the world power we once were.

 

We still have one of the biggest defence budgets in the world... why is it that other countries of similar size do not need such a budget?!

[Thedelldays]

We would have no nuclear weapons programme without US help. It's also pretty expensive, if you want more warships and so on, then maybe the government should think of scrapping that. We can't just keep spending more and more money on defence. I think we are far too nostalgic on here, people need to accept we aren't the world power we once were.

 

We still have one of the biggest defence budgets in the world... why is it that other countries of similar size do not need such a budget?!

yes..HTH

[Saintandy666]

yes..HTH

 

 

So therefore it isn't independent...

[View From The Top]

No point in having a seat at the top table if we can't afford the cover charge.

[ecuk268]

Many former naval officers say it would be extremely difficult to use Trident without US consent. The many computer software programs, the fuse, the trigger, the guidance system as well as the missiles are all made in America.

 

The delivery system is designed, made and stored in the United States. The firing system is also designed and made in the US. So is the guidance system. The computer software is American. The warhead design is based on the US W-76 bomb. The warheads are produced by Aldermaston, which is co-managed by the US firm Lockheed Martin and uses a great deal of US technology. Some vital nuclear explosive parts are imported from the US, as are some non-nuclear parts. The warhead factory is a copy of a facility at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The submarine maintenance base is also 51 per cent owned by Halliburton of the US.

 

It didn't deter the Argentinians, the Iraqis or the Afghans and it certainly won't prevent future terrorist attacks which is where the main danger to the UK comes from.

[Saint in Paradise]

If the Argies wanted to take the Falklands we would be powerless to stop them. Yes the standing forces would offer some resistance they'd be over run and once dug in we would lack the assets to dislodge them.

 

I think it was in The Telegraph the other day when it said the U.S. would Not help the UK if the Falklands

were invaded again. They would support the Argentine as the U.S. feel they are a stable country and the

U.S. want that in South America. So much for being best pals with the U.K.

 

 

 

.

[Thedelldays]

So therefore it isn't independent...

 

eer, it is...thanks though

[Micky]

I'm not condoning this at all but this is exactly what most of the public sector is saying. The police, education (NHS is slightly different) but everyone is saying the same thing - you can't expect to do more with less. The common (mis)conception is that we can achieve cuts and produce the same or better performance by cutting out waste - that's not the case and in my experience the waste is at senior management levels anyway, and as they hold the purse strings they're unlikely to be touched. I'm sure that's as true in the MOD as it is in the rest of the public sector.

 

This.

 

As a civie we have been doing this in my company for the last 18 months at least - all it means is that we slash the quality and the product that we deliver to the customer is crap. Who gives a sh it.

 

For HM Forces it means more operational tours, less effective equipment, more urgency to get the job finished, more soldiers being killed. Who gives a sh it.

[ecuk268]

eer, it is...thanks though

 

Would you like to expand on your argument? Just saying "it is" leaves a bit to be desired.

[alpine_saint]

1billion worth of Harriers sold off for 34million.

 

What a bunch of tw*ts this Government is run by.

[Saintandy666]

eer, it is...thanks though

 

As ecuk said, please expand. I thought ecuk put forward a pretty compelling argument as to why our nuclear weapons programme is not independent. Your go now...

[alpine_saint]

Many former naval officers say it would be extremely difficult to use Trident without US consent. The many computer software programs, the fuse, the trigger, the guidance system as well as the missiles are all made in America.

 

The delivery system is designed, made and stored in the United States. The firing system is also designed and made in the US. So is the guidance system. The computer software is American. The warhead design is based on the US W-76 bomb. The warheads are produced by Aldermaston, which is co-managed by the US firm Lockheed Martin and uses a great deal of US technology. Some vital nuclear explosive parts are imported from the US, as are some non-nuclear parts. The warhead factory is a copy of a facility at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The submarine maintenance base is also 51 per cent owned by Halliburton of the US.

 

It didn't deter the Argentinians, the Iraqis or the Afghans and it certainly won't prevent future terrorist attacks which is where the main danger to the UK comes from.

 

Sorry, dont get this argument AT ALL.

 

Yes, the US Government could strangle off our independent nuclear deterrent in a fairly short time, but the 16 missiles which are at sea at any time are self-contained and capable of being fired without any intervention from the UK (or the US) and can be fired upon agreement of the Captain, XO, and Weapons Engineering Officer.

 

If the US tried to tear up the long-standing agreements between teh US and UK, we would come up with our own deterrent, even if it was just nuke warheads on Tomahawks, loaded on to Trafalgar subs.

[ecuk268]

Sorry, dont get this argument AT ALL.

 

Yes, the US Government could strangle off our independent nuclear deterrent in a fairly short time, but the 16 missiles which are at sea at any time are self-contained and capable of being fired without any intervention from the UK (or the US) and can be fired upon agreement of the Captain, XO, and Weapons Engineering Officer.

 

If the US tried to tear up the long-standing agreements between teh US and UK, we would come up with our own deterrent, even if it was just nuke warheads on Tomahawks, loaded on to Trafalgar subs.

 

All of our warheads are sourced from the US. You can't just put them on a shelf and leave them - they need servicing or they deteriorate. If the supply of spares was cut off we'd be stuffed.

 

Nobody has yet said who exactly is being deterred.

[alpine_saint]

All of our warheads are sourced from the US. You can't just put them on a shelf and leave them - they need servicing or they deteriorate. If the supply of spares was cut off we'd be stuffed.

 

Nobody has yet said who exactly is being deterred.

 

Sorry, thats completely rubbish. We have always produced our own warheads at Aldermaston. Yes, they might be based on the W-76, but we service them. And in addition, the chevaline project to extend the life of Polaris was a British project, so we know what we are doing.

[ecuk268]

Sorry, thats completely rubbish. We have always produced our own warheads at Aldermaston. Yes, they might be based on the W-76, but we service them. And in addition, the chevaline project to extend the life of Polaris was a British project, so we know what we are doing.

 

Your garage may service your car but if they can't get the spares (from Lockheed) then there's not a lot they can do. The software, the guidance systems the fuses, the triggers all come from Lockheed. Aldermaston are the assemblers. Even Chevaline was developed in conjunction with Lockheed (and many others).

 

Sir Michael Quinian, who was the head of Britains nuclear strategy, was asked what would happen if we attempted to go against the wishes of the US. He said that Lockheed would pack up and go home, taking their essential equipment with them, no spare parts would be available and as he put it: "We would be in shtook."

 

Ex-Foreign Secretary Robon Cook also wrote that our nuclear deterrent was entirely dependant upon the US.

[alpine_saint]

Your garage may service your car but if they can't get the spares (from Lockheed) then there's not a lot they can do. The software, the guidance systems the fuses, the triggers all come from Lockheed. Aldermaston are the assemblers. Even Chevaline was developed in conjunction with Lockheed (and many others).

 

Sir Michael Quinian, who was the head of Britains nuclear strategy, was asked what would happen if we attempted to go against the wishes of the US. He said that Lockheed would pack up and go home, taking their essential equipment with them, no spare parts would be available and as he put it: "We would be in shtook."

 

Ex-Foreign Secretary Robon Cook also wrote that our nuclear deterrent was entirely dependant upon the US.

 

Sorry, dont believe it.

 

The only part of a nuclear warhead in need of regular servicing is the tritium resevoir, which decays with a very short half-life into helium, which actually acts an inhibitor to the secondary nuclear detonation in a thermonuclear warhead. This has given rise to the common perception about nuclear warheads having a "shelf life". Replacing the tritium resevior (actually, it is more like a decontamination by filtering and then topping-up) is well within our capabilities.

 

Btw, whilst you are banging on about Lockheed Martin, you do realise I hope that it is British (BAE Systems) owned, dont you ?