Great Britain guts military services.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Lots of Losers in U.K. Defense Review

 

By ANDREW CHUTER

Published: 19 Oct 2010 18:22

 

LONDON - Few winners but lots of losers have emerged from a defense review that has inflicted the most sweeping cuts to Britain's defense capabilities since the end of the Cold War. The Strategic Defense and Security Review, unveiled Oct. 19 by Prime Minister David Cameron, stripped the armed forces of various capabilities, reduced military and civilian personnel numbers, and ushered in a restructuring of the Army.

 

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4934263&c=EUR&s=TOP

Edited October 20, 2010 by Say What?!

[Slartibartfast 153]

Links broken...

 

But from what I have seen

 

HMS Ark Royal Gone...

Harriers Gone (Bad idea)

Nimrod Gone (This one shouldn't have even started IMHO)

A lot of heavy Armour Gone

40% of the Artillery Gone

 

Closure of bases etc

 

Oh and the Aircraft Carriers get to stay but with Catapults so no F-35B's which should allow for the RN to get other Naval Jets... Only problem is that the Carriers will have no Fighters on them for 10 years give or take...

 

Whats the use of a Carrier without Aircraft ??? Buy the Super Bugs and Hawkeyes job done...

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

I heard about this this morning... Stinks of the 1957 Defense White paper's lack of foresight. Sad end to the Harrier's and the Ark Royal's career. The way I heard David Cameron speak about it this morning, he made it sound as if the Harriers currently in service were 40 years old. Then there are the Sentinels, the Tornado GR.4s, the Nimrods, the STOVL F-35s (which is now going to make it a whole lot more expensive for anyone else to consider purchasing), the 5000+ redundancies, the inevitable loss of skills, the capability gaps... and that's just the RAF alone!

 

Link's back up.

[+daddyairplanes 10,281]

hate to say it my British friends but wlcome to the third world! (and we over here thought Obama was tryin to destroy America!)

[xclusiv8 35]

As i understand it GB is in some deep trouble with theire economics, am i right? So to actually fix that problem you have to save some money. And since the military is the largest expense for most countries it would seem only logical to try and do some cutbacks there..

 

What would you guys do instead to fix the economical problem in GB?

[+daddyairplanes 10,281]

it is true that a nations greatest expense is its defense. is say welcome to the third world not because is expect to see britons living in mud huts or getting rice airlifted in. rather the british empire has many overseas territories and protectorates(read that CITIZENS).it will be hard to protect those citizens with the force structure spelled out. also as a nominal first world power it also has a responsiblity to assist in operations around the world such that the problems don't come home to roost in london or manchester. with the force that is being proposed and likely further future cuts as systems waing to become operational get more expensive it would be hopeful indeed if Her Majesty's Armed Forces could project force into ireland!

Edited October 20, 2010 by daddyairplanes

[+Dave 2,322]

Wow the sun is setting on the British Empire.

 

 

[Slartibartfast 153]

Okay I apologise for the length of this but after now having a study of what they are doing I am disgusted...

 

The major issue with the UK government is that they see the expensive military and when cuts are needed they hack there first... Biggest issue I have is that the same government officials then give jobs to their mates who work for BAe and the UK Defence industries, oops sorry thats BAe, who then lobby the government for them to create the equipment used by the UK military which costs up to 3 times what equivalent equipment costs. Case in point Nimrod MR4... If they had decided on buying an off the shelf Airliner say the A320 and installing the equipment in those instead of re-building 40-50 year old Airframes which where hand built they could have had the systems in place and flying for a lot less money or even better wait until the P-9 Poseidon comes out and purchase those of the shelf. Another Case is the "new" Wildcat Helicopter which carries half what the UH-60B carries for twice the cost in money, it was worked out that they could have bough 2.5 UH-60's (Latest models with all the toys and I don't think the US would mind them being bought and constructed in the UK)... Granted its keeping jobs in this country and technology here but for the military you normally go for the most bang for your pound...

 

There was also a meeting concerning the Eurofighter to do with costings etc and an MP who also happens to sit on the board of BAe, before the meeting started stated they didn't want the Chief of the Air Force in it... !!! to me thats strikes of something wrong. The guy who has the most to say about it isn't allowed in the meeting.

 

If it was to me I would keep the R1 Sentinels simply because they are bought and paid for and its only upkeep required now, flying costs etc. Allow the purchase of both Carriers (building the hull is cheap its all the stuff inside thats expensive) but stick Super bugs and E-2's on them. Scrap the Type 45 Destroyers and purchase Arleigh Burkes, the RN could buy 1.5 Arleigh Burkes which work for a Type 45. Keep the Type 23 but replace them not with the Type 26 but a common hull multi setup ship. E.g. which is containerised so that it can be changed for whatever i.e. Minesweeper, Corvette etc. granted the heavy armour here in the UK the Challenger 2 is a world beater. But some of those need to go.

 

But Job Number 1 is make BAe fight for the contracts don't let them think that they are the only providers to the UK. Also impose severe penalties if the contracts are not on time and budget oh and that they work as advertised. In other words like the type 45 apparently its designed to stop SS-N-22 Sunburn ASM but the companies involved are not going to test it against a supersonic target!!! If I have something that is supposed to do a job I expect to know it has been tested and works against that target!!! Would anyone here buy a car that has been tested on a rolling road but not on the road in all weathers ??? No I thought so...

 

Also its the bankers who caused this mess along with a certain Gordon Brown (surely someone in charge of the budget should be able to add and subtract). I will admit I am an advocate of if you havn't done a similar job i.e. Accountant you shouldn't be able to be the finance minister etc...

 

Apologies again for the length and this is just the short version... I may edit this again...

Edited October 20, 2010 by Slartibartfast

[+Jimbib 747]

What would you guys do instead to fix the economical problem in GB?

 

I would be begin by rounding up all the benefit scroungers who can't be arsed to get a job and one by one, punch them straight in the face. See how they like it.

 

Anyways, not even going to comment on the decisions made, some of them beggar belief. However if anyone is interested in reading up on this travesty from the horse's mouth, here's the SDSR...

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf

[MigBuster 2,884]

I'm still not convinced they actually need make such cuts in such a short space of time - anyway its a good job the RAF can cover every hot spot around the globe.............oh

 

Typical private company way of doing things - maybe they will outsource everything to the USN.

[macelena 1,070]

Typical private company way of doing things - maybe they will outsource everything to the USN.

 

I heard they thought of the French Navy. Btw, it seems that London smog was about the weeds those guys take. It´s crazy if they go ahaead with this. Maybe GB should be less ambitious on his projection capabilities, but even we, hit as hard by the crisis, have two carriers. This budget cut is overkill, imho

[ezlead 42]

Example:

Argentina can wait about a year for the cutbacks to take place and then go after the Falklands again. GB won't have the military to send there.

When your enemies think you're weak,that is when they will come after you and yours.

When accountants(bean counters) run the world,they will SAVE us all into slavery.

[GwynO 16]

Example:

Argentina can wait about a year for the cutbacks to take place and then go after the Falklands again. GB won't have the military to send there.

When your enemies think you're weak,that is when they will come after you and yours.

When accountants(bean counters) run the world,they will SAVE us all into slavery.

 

Totally agree. Luckily in the case of the Falklands, the Typhoons already there, and the submarines that may or may not be constantly within range of taking out the entire Argentine Air Force before they even get a plane off the ground , satellite and numerous sigint and humint assets that may or may not be monitoring these things; the chances of them landing a solitary bomb let alone a troop on the Islands is virtually nil.. that is of course, if green lights were given from Whitehall.. and that, that is a whole different matter.

 

But the cuts amount to a bare faced selling out of our sovereignty non the less. Without the power to protect our ground forces operating far from home from our own carriers, our ability to act independently is virtually non existent. Our strategic positioning in the world will now depend almost entirely on our allies. It's ironic really, as I firmly believe that a lot of the feeling behind these cuts was to somehow excuse us from what a lot of politicians consider "other peoples wars", that by emasculating our military it not only saves us money, but gives us an excuse to sit on our hands and let the rest of the world fill our defence needs and responsibilities in matters that effect us all such as global terrorism, failed nuclear states, extremist socialist and fascist tendencies still simmering the world over, ethnic tensions in regions with a history of genocidal madness still bubbling.. It just boggles the mind why anyone would think the UK having less to "give" in any future conflicts gives us any more say in how such would be conducted, if we actually had something valuable to contribute in the form of a Fleet Air Arm or an Air Force that could actually have a decisive part to play, we would actually have more chance of deciding not just whose wars we fight, but how, why, on what terms we are going to do so.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Nah forget the Fleet Air Arm - the RAF will be flying from Acension in those Tornado GR4s they somehow managed to keep - if we can get a few more tankers from somewhere

Edited October 21, 2010 by MigBuster

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Related I guess, supposedly, a "leaked" report DailyMail.uk says UK.gov is laying off 10% "public" employees. That in itself is a good start, although watch out for no corresponding reduction in the mass of bureaucracy. Suicidal poasted about Argentine military not purchasing combat material for about ten years. I'm guessing that is because of the Argentine economic collapse and currency devaluation (the what?) nine years ago. Maybe its our turn now.

 

 

Start::

Also its the bankers who caused this mess along with a certain Gordon Brown (....

Not entirely. We men and women all went along with it, bidding up prices against each other for bank "credit," voting only for leaders who sold themselves to our creditors. Its in ye Olde Testament, somewhere...need to bone up on that...the Israelites decide they want a worldly flesh type of king to rule over them. God said..."smooth, but when you get owned, don't whine on my forum," or something like that.

 

A fave screenshot I found, kinda like us tearing at our clothing looking to blame somebody...

[+daddyairplanes 10,281]

Nah forget the Fleet Air Arm - the RAF will be flying from Acension in those Tornado GR4s they somehow managed to keep - if we can get a few more tankers from somewhere

 

 

don't look at us for tankers. our 135's will be getting taxied to keep the tires inflated. and we will still be trying to decide who will build the new ones:rofl:

[GwynO 16]

Damn skippy we're all part of the problem! People are all to quick over here to try and make out this economic crisis is down to greedy bankers alone, or worse, Gordon Brown.. the painful truth is the whole country was living on credit, fixated with house prices thinking they would continue to rise exponentially for the rest of their lives contrary to any basic common sense reading of history that shows markets go down as well as up.. people spending the hypothetical future value of their homes now by re mortgaging because in ten years the house will be triple what it is now and pay off all that debt and leave their kids something.. I mean what kind of cloud cuckoo land delusion was that? No one who over spent on credit in that time can just point to one person or one group of people alone, they were all part of spend now worry later mentality. It's a true chicken and egg situation, blame the bankers? They wouldn't be able to fool people without foolish people to let them do it, same with druggies and drug dealers, who is really to blame, the persons supplying, or the persons sustaining the supply? Well they say guns don't kill people, people kill people.. with the banks, economy and such, it's greed that robs us all, there are those that thrive on our greed, and there are those that are victims to greed.. but no matter what, it's their own greed that is ultimately to blame and it's something that people can take control of, just most people are too lazy. /rant off

 

Still, greed, debts, mistakes and so on... if you spend all your family fortunes on wine, women and fast cars; when the debt collectors need paying... you DON'T pawn off your shotgun or whatever else you have for your family's protection. The military is such an important thing for a country, it's criminal to let it be miss managed to such an extent that it racks up enormous bills the way we do with pally deals between the high up aristocratic friends of BAe and the likes in Parliament and the MOD, charging us daylight robbery prices that get signed off purely because that's just the way we've always done it. None the less, just because we are being ripped off left right and centre, there are far better ways to reduce the budget deficit than to emasculate the military, getting rid of scrounger benefits for a start, so many people on disability benefit just aren't that sick.. I know people (sadly only to bloody well) that have been signed off on the sick for 20 years or more, yet there is nothing physically wrong with them, they can walk, they can sit in front of a screen and type, they can answer calls.. but just because they might have some kind of fit if they lift something ridiculously heavy, they get paid to sit at home! It's ridiculous.. we lost our balls as a country years ago, we're just too scared to call a spade a spade and face up to the cold hard truths.

[+Jimbib 747]

Example:

Argentina can wait about a year for the cutbacks to take place and then go after the Falklands again. GB won't have the military to send there.

 

If you read the original document, you'll see that one of the main, new initiatives for all three branches of the forces is to defend the UK and its South Atlantic Territories. Argentina won't be laying a finger on the Falklands again in a hurry.

[shotdown 8]

The major issue with the UK government is that they see the expensive military and when cuts are needed they hack there first... Biggest issue I have is that the same government officials then give jobs to their mates who work for BAe and the UK Defence industries...

 

You're right. National defence has become the last and least important issue in the list of military priorities (Of course, this list is made by politicians and the soldiers are not asked)

Think of us. Our army has helicopters that our military men never wanted (they wanted Apaches and Black Hawks but got Cougars and Tigers instead). A few years ago, our government decided to build the 5th of the F-100 class Frigate... even though there were not enough people availble to man the existing ships (but...our shipyards needed some help, and the loss of money that could be invested in something else more neccessary doesn't really matter, right?. Doesn't matter if our soldiers must fly in 30-40 years old helicopters. We all know the soldiers will adapt to whatever stupid situation in wich they are left by our politicians ). And btw, defence is far from the main government expense here (And in most western countries, I think.)

Edited October 25, 2010 by shotdown

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Gwyno::

It's a true chicken and egg situation, blame the bankers?

There is a difference. Left alone, men and women are generally conservative in their finances, saving before buying. Conservative society generally punishes reckless borrowers and reckless lenders alike. In the 20th century, this all changed, and going into debt was encouraged by slowly eliminating non-debt based money for everyday commerce and replacing it with legal tender "central" bank debt currency.

 

I suppose you are in Euro, and I don't know much about that. Over here across the Mid Atlantic Coffe-Tea Boundary (CT Boundary), our debt based currency has fallen in street value by maybe 98% since the founding in 1914 of our "central" bank. As the currency falls in value, men and women can't use it for long term savings, so near everybody -- families, businesses, pension funds, and municipalities all included, are easily tempted into risky "high yield" Wall Street and I suppose City Of London paper investments. Risky financial behavior includes borrowing into debt on the assumption of always ever higher asset prices, like cardboard drywall houses. A falling value debt currency ensures higher asset prices until there is too much debt. That's where we are now.

 

Overly massive debt everywhere didn't get started until weak governments sold mens' and womens' money to the giant banks with the force of "law" behind them. Thus the chicken vs egg scenario is not exact, but perhaps close?

[SUICIDAL 401]

Totally agree. Luckily in the case of the Falklands, the Typhoons already there, and the submarines that may or may not be constantly within range of taking out the entire Argentine Air Force before they even get a plane off the ground , satellite and numerous sigint and humint assets that may or may not be monitoring these things; the chances of them landing a solitary bomb let alone a troop on the Islands is virtually nil.. that is of course, if green lights were given from Whitehall.. and that, that is a whole different matter.

 

But the cuts amount to a bare faced selling out of our sovereignty non the less. Without the power to protect our ground forces operating far from home from our own carriers, our ability to act independently is virtually non existent. Our strategic positioning in the world will now depend almost entirely on our allies. It's ironic really, as I firmly believe that a lot of the feeling behind these cuts was to somehow excuse us from what a lot of politicians consider "other peoples wars", that by emasculating our military it not only saves us money, but gives us an excuse to sit on our hands and let the rest of the world fill our defence needs and responsibilities in matters that effect us all such as global terrorism, failed nuclear states, extremist socialist and fascist tendencies still simmering the world over, ethnic tensions in regions with a history of genocidal madness still bubbling.. It just boggles the mind why anyone would think the UK having less to "give" in any future conflicts gives us any more say in how such would be conducted, if we actually had something valuable to contribute in the form of a Fleet Air Arm or an Air Force that could actually have a decisive part to play, we would actually have more chance of deciding not just whose wars we fight, but how, why, on what terms we are going to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You really are great I'm glad the night

jajajajaja. ... Q manga de BL2S

Saludos

Marcos