MattW

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3912283.stm

The jutification seems to be about the fact that modern warfare is\will be more technological than manpower orientated.

This certainly does not seem to be the case in Iraq where the enemy is "invisible". I was led to believe there was a shortage of good trained soldiers.

Maybe someone in or recently in the forces can comment.

OllyK

It's called cutting costs left right and centre becuase the government know the figures just don't add up going forward and they will be neck deep in the brown and smelly by the next election if they don't find the money to support their spending.

If the spin was true - I expect the US army and most of the other world armies would be cutting back to the same extent would they not?

unclebuck

Typical of this Government. Send them to war on false pretences, then reward their loyalties by sacking them and destroying centuries of military history and tradition.

They make me sick.

UB

Taff107

I'm with you on this UB. Send us to war and not even have the decency to give us a pay rise in line with inflation. This 'Government' commit us to more and more deployments, what with our modern-day 'world policing' role (so much so, that I know people who are on their third 6 month deployment to Iraq since Jan03) yet think that we are over-manned! - Sickening.
The effectiveness of the British Army will be seriously affected and have serious recruitment problems in the future if this continues

Jerome

I fear that this government is going to further (irreparably) harm the Armed Forces with these cuts.

The govt will probably rely on the Reserves as they did during the Iraq War. Even the most keen Reservist can't be as experienced as a Regular. For Home Defence this is probably not that much of an issue. But when it comes to combat missions abroad, it can make a big difference. An infantry soldier does 6 weeks basic training, then a further 18 weeks trade training. It would take a TA soldier up to 12 years to get just this much training in.

The total reliance on Hi-Tech is not the way to go. In just about all of the potential hotspots around the globe, any visiting forces, be it peacekeeping or combat, need men/women on the ground. Options for change decimated the Armed Forces. Senior Officers in the Armed Forces have been continually complaining that they don't have enough troops to cover the tasks in hand - without sending tens of thousands off to places like Iraq.

As for the state of morale before these cuts, when I was in Iraq last year, Reservists were being given most (read all) of the crappy jobs because morale with the Regulars was so bad.

I also don't like the idea of further amalgamations of Army Regiments. Regimental identity and pride is what makes the British Army so great. I would not like to see us mirror the US Army where they do not have this Regimental pride. In fact, the Yanks envy our way of doing things. The US are right now studying the British Forces because they were so impressed with them, in particular the Royal Marines (not the Army but run on Army lines).

I also hope they don't go the way of the Canadian Armed Forces, which are generally reckoned to be a bit of a joke because of cronic underfunding.

Recruitment offices for the Armed Forces are going to have their work cut out.

Taff107

The Canadian Army are one of the highest paid aren't they? They were when I worked with them in '96 anyway.........

OllyK

The other problem will be recruiting the TA soldiers after the shafting they have just been dished out with Iraq this time round. Yes your job may be guarenteed when you get back, but your house may well have been reposessed due to going from civvie wages to a privates wages plus a small percentage consideration (still capped at the early 1990's rates IIRC).

I caught up with some of the guys who had just got back from Iraq from the unit I used to be with and most of them were in serious financial trouble as a result.

That would be true if you only did a 2 week camp per year, as an independant unit, we used to do 3 weekends a month, 1 night a week AND a 2 week camp a year.

Yes the specialists who do 1 weekend per month would take a life time, but again most of them also do a 2 week camp as well. Also most of the specialist units are ex regular anyway. Take the int corps for example, you have to be ex int corps to get in, you already have the training, they just want to keep you topped up and available to them if they need you.

I am not suggesting that the TA are to the same standard as the regulars, they can't be, but most regulars I talked to that spent time with the TA were surprised by how good they were and how committed they were for the time they put in

Jerome

Taken from here
Postwar developments

At the end of World War II, Canada possessed the third largest navy and fourth largest air force in the world, as well as the largest all-volunteer army ever fielded (conscription for overseas service was only introduced near the end of the war, and no conscripts actually made it into battle). Defence spending and personnel remained high during the early years of Cold War, but began to decline in the 1960s and 1970s as the perceived threat from the Warsaw Pact diminished. Throughout the 1990s, successive budget cuts have forced further reductions in the personnel, number of bases, and fighting ability of the Canadian Forces. Sizable Canadian air and land forces were maintained in West Germany under NATO command from the end of World War II until the early 1990s.

Modern reorganization

Unlike the British and U.S. armed forces, the Canadian Forces is a single organisation with a unified command structure. Between 1965 and 1969 the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) were combined into one service. The British-style uniforms (khaki, navy blue and sky blue) of the three services were abandoned in favour of rifle green. The traditional navy and air force rank names were replaced by their army equivalents, with naval-style rank badges for officers and army-style for non-commissioned members. Maritime Command has since returned to the traditional naval rank names (colonel = captain etc.) but Air Command did not retain its rank names (major not squadron leader). Critics argue that unification had a terrible impact on the morale of the Air and Maritime Commands and accomplished little in cost savings. In an effort to restore morale, Maritime and Air Commands were allowed to return to their traditional navy and sky-blue uniforms in the mid 1980s.

Jerome

Indeed. My Army salary was half my civvy salary. The Army will make up your army wages to your civilian salary but there are caps dependant on rank. Fecking stupid because your TA rank has no bearing on your civvy salary. I knew many guys who were even worse off than me. If my civvy company hadn't made up the shortfall, I would have gone bankrupt while still in Iraq.


I agree. Which is why I said "up to" 12 years. I personally did many weeks each year whilst I was with a company that gave me 6 weeks leave plus an extra week for the TA. However I know of many guys that also do the minimum (bounty hunters), especially the infantry guys.

I also agree that the regulars are often impressed by the TA, when they get to work with them. In Iraq, apart from the odd biffer, you couldn't tell who most of the Reservists were.

the moose

Except that it was the Armed Forces pushing for the changes .........

Buckrogers

Its not good. Heard on the radio that Geoff Buffoon said "most" of the savings would be spent on hi-tech stuff. Mmmm, "most", where is the rest of it going to be wasted??

End of the day, hi tech or low tech, theres no subsitute for "boots on the floor".

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Errrr - I believe that defence spending is actually going UP? This is the usual half-story reported by papers like the Daily Fascist, sorry, Mail, who have always loved printing stories like this - even when the Tories were in.


M

Petem95

The cuts are shocking really - where the hell does all the all the money the government go? They tax everything to death, then make constant cut-backs to public service?

Without wanting to go off topic, I can think of a few areas that might be seriously draining resources, but there've been enough threads on asylum and immigration recently

Sbradley

Oh yes, "In real terms" there is a 1.4% increase. Roughly translated, it means that HMG are going to rip the heart out of the forces and fiddle with the way the budgets are reported to make that increase.

The Armed Forces absolutely did not request this, and to suggest otherwise is crazy. They have been trying to get various projects reviewed and/or canned for ages - current thinking is that we really don't need our SSBN fleet to be as big as it is, for example, and we certainly don't need so many bean counters at the MOD. We could easily save shedloads by concentrating on what we actually need and what we are good at. Perhaps we can lose a couple of anti submarine frigates because subs are less of a threat. And perhaps we could afford to ditch some of the more esoteric high technology projects that we neither need nor, probably, will ever get working properly anyway.

Our forces are renowned across the world for their professionalism and their reliance on good soldiering rather than having all the latest kit. We have the best special forces anywhere, bar none, but the government is selling all that down the river so that we can become, as Nick Soames suggested, "a wholly owned subsidiary of the US Army."

Get rid of this government and the accountants and let the forces be run by someone who both understands what they need and cares about the people. Christ, I'll chuck in the day job and go do it myself, for nothing, if that's what it takes...



SB

Merv

iTrader: (12)

Why do we need more Admirals than we have ships?Cuts need to start at the top not at the bottom.

StickyMicky

cuts are a bad move IMO

r32

We cant cope now, so theres no way after these cuts. We might as well disband the whole lot really as be so ineffective ...........
Labour ............. 1.35 per mile. what ever next......

Leslie

Yes I spent a good few years feeling that we were not really appreciated by the Government of the time. At one time as a qualified Captain and flying instructor/ instrument rating examiner on the Vulcan, I was paid less than a London bus driver on overtime!

It got better later though-for a while!

Les