Defence cuts.
19 October 2010, 05:21 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence cuts.
Firstly I accept we need to cut due to Labours mismanagement.
So Harrier is scrapped.
HMS Ark Royal is gone.
40% of tanks/artillery is gone.
Lots of personel junked.
Still getting those 2 carriers though.
New nimrod gone.
Trident replacement postponed.
But it means HMS Illustrious will have no planes! So we have no aircraft that can take off and land from carriers for 10 years (until JSF comes in), then they will sell? one of the new carriers straight away, leaving no carriers when the ONE carrier is being refitted or repaired.
I have to say why the **** are they not scrapping the tornado? The harrier is way more flexible because of the carrier capability. Just stupid. Tornado is at least as out of date if not more, the GR1 is just a bomb truck - which harrier can do surely?
Any military peeps there?
So Harrier is scrapped.
HMS Ark Royal is gone.
40% of tanks/artillery is gone.
Lots of personel junked.
Still getting those 2 carriers though.
New nimrod gone.
Trident replacement postponed.
But it means HMS Illustrious will have no planes! So we have no aircraft that can take off and land from carriers for 10 years (until JSF comes in), then they will sell? one of the new carriers straight away, leaving no carriers when the ONE carrier is being refitted or repaired.
I have to say why the **** are they not scrapping the tornado? The harrier is way more flexible because of the carrier capability. Just stupid. Tornado is at least as out of date if not more, the GR1 is just a bomb truck - which harrier can do surely?
Any military peeps there?
19 October 2010, 05:26 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly I accept we need to cut due to Labours mismanagement.
So Harrier is scrapped.
HMS Ark Royal is gone.
40% of tanks/artillery is gone.
Lots of personel junked.
Still getting those 2 carriers though.
New nimrod gone.
Trident replacement postponed.
But it means HMS Illustrious will have no planes! So we have no aircraft that can take off and land from carriers for 10 years (until JSF comes in), then they will sell? one of the new carriers straight away, leaving no carriers when the ONE carrier is being refitted or repaired.
I have to say why the **** are they not scrapping the tornado? The harrier is way more flexible because of the carrier capability. Just stupid. Tornado is at least as out of date if not more, the GR1 is just a bomb truck - which harrier can do surely?
Any military peeps there?
So Harrier is scrapped.
HMS Ark Royal is gone.
40% of tanks/artillery is gone.
Lots of personel junked.
Still getting those 2 carriers though.
New nimrod gone.
Trident replacement postponed.
But it means HMS Illustrious will have no planes! So we have no aircraft that can take off and land from carriers for 10 years (until JSF comes in), then they will sell? one of the new carriers straight away, leaving no carriers when the ONE carrier is being refitted or repaired.
I have to say why the **** are they not scrapping the tornado? The harrier is way more flexible because of the carrier capability. Just stupid. Tornado is at least as out of date if not more, the GR1 is just a bomb truck - which harrier can do surely?
Any military peeps there?
The chap from Janes Defence said Tornado is by far the most capable plane compared to Harrier.
Faster
Longer range
Better Navigations
Bigger and more sophisticated payload
Apart from that...
19 October 2010, 05:36 PM
#5
Firstly I accept we need to cut due to Labours mismanagement.
So Harrier is scrapped.
HMS Ark Royal is gone.
40% of tanks/artillery is gone.
Lots of personel junked.
Still getting those 2 carriers though.
New nimrod gone.
Trident replacement postponed.
But it means HMS Illustrious will have no planes! So we have no aircraft that can take off and land from carriers for 10 years (until JSF comes in), then they will sell? one of the new carriers straight away, leaving no carriers when the ONE carrier is being refitted or repaired.
I have to say why the **** are they not scrapping the tornado? The harrier is way more flexible because of the carrier capability. Just stupid. Tornado is at least as out of date if not more, the GR1 is just a bomb truck - which harrier can do surely?
Any military peeps there?
The outcome of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) which sets out how the government will deliver the priorities identified in the National Security Strategy has been published today, Tuesday, 19 October 2010.
A Royal Air Force Chinook helicopter carrying members of 42 Commando Royal Marines comes in to land in Afghanistan [Picture: POA(Phot) Sean Clee, Crown Copyright/MOD 2006]
Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review, details how our Armed Forces will be reshaped to tackle emerging and future threats.
There have been two main priorities in the review:
Defence cannot continue on unaffordable footing. The SDSR aims to bring defence plans, commitments and resources into balance so that we have a coherent defence capability and a sustainable defence programme for the future.
Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Liam Fox said:
While many of the changes the SDSR will bring about will be unsettling and unpopular, the Board are content that we have the best possible outcome in the circumstances.
Sir Bill Jeffrey and Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup have written to all Defence Personnel outlining the key outcomes of the review. The full text of their letter can be found below.
There will be some major changes to force elements of all three Services to enable them to meet future force structures. These are set out in the PUS/CDS message.
The Review will lead to reductions in manpower over the next five years across all three Services and the civilians in Defence.
A study will be undertaken by the leadership of the regular and Reserves into the future role and structure of the Reserves. We expect this study to take about six months.
Changes on this scale cannot be managed by the usual manning regulators. A redundancy scheme will be run for Service Personnel and a paid Early Release Scheme for civilians in accordance with the usual arrangements for such schemes, including - in the case of civilians - consultation with the Trade Unions.
Details of the Scheme for the Armed Forces will be published later today. Details for a civilian early release scheme will follow once consultation with the Trade Unions has concluded, but the broad principles for a scheme will also be published today.
Much effort will now be required to work through the detailed implications of the various SDSR decisions and their implementation.
Part of this will be the work of the Defence Reform Unit, which is looking at the organisation of MOD and will report in July 2011. This will ensure Defence is delivered as effectively and efficiently as possible. Reforms will be implemented as the review progresses.
Permanent Secretary, Sir Bill Jeffrey and Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup have written the following to all Defence Personnel to give the top line details of the outcomes:
HM Ships Dauntless and Daring conducting manoeuvres south of the Isle of Wight [Picture: LA(Phot) Ian Simpson, Crown Copyright/MOD 2010]
A Royal Air Force Typhoon from RAF Coningsby during Exercise Green Flag at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, USA [Picture: Sergeant Gordy Elias, Crown Copyright/MOD 2009]
Here you go Tony!
So Harrier is scrapped.
HMS Ark Royal is gone.
40% of tanks/artillery is gone.
Lots of personel junked.
Still getting those 2 carriers though.
New nimrod gone.
Trident replacement postponed.
But it means HMS Illustrious will have no planes! So we have no aircraft that can take off and land from carriers for 10 years (until JSF comes in), then they will sell? one of the new carriers straight away, leaving no carriers when the ONE carrier is being refitted or repaired.
I have to say why the **** are they not scrapping the tornado? The harrier is way more flexible because of the carrier capability. Just stupid. Tornado is at least as out of date if not more, the GR1 is just a bomb truck - which harrier can do surely?
Any military peeps there?
The outcome of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) which sets out how the government will deliver the priorities identified in the National Security Strategy has been published today, Tuesday, 19 October 2010.
A Royal Air Force Chinook helicopter carrying members of 42 Commando Royal Marines comes in to land in Afghanistan [Picture: POA(Phot) Sean Clee, Crown Copyright/MOD 2006]
Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review, details how our Armed Forces will be reshaped to tackle emerging and future threats.
There have been two main priorities in the review:
- to ensure that our mission in Afghanistan is protected
- to make sure we emerge with a coherent Defence capability in 2020.
Defence cannot continue on unaffordable footing. The SDSR aims to bring defence plans, commitments and resources into balance so that we have a coherent defence capability and a sustainable defence programme for the future.
Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Liam Fox said:
"The frontline has been protected because Afghanistan is the Government's top priority.
"Tough decisions are required to reconfigure our Armed Forces to confront future threats whilst we also tackle the £38bn deficit that has accumulated in the 12 years since the last Defence Review.
"The MOD must become as effective and as efficient as possible. Lord Levene will help me deliver radical reform to streamline the Department."
Permanent Secretary, Sir Bill Jeffrey and Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup together with the Service Chiefs and other members of the Defence Board have been closely involved throughout the Review. "Tough decisions are required to reconfigure our Armed Forces to confront future threats whilst we also tackle the £38bn deficit that has accumulated in the 12 years since the last Defence Review.
"The MOD must become as effective and as efficient as possible. Lord Levene will help me deliver radical reform to streamline the Department."
While many of the changes the SDSR will bring about will be unsettling and unpopular, the Board are content that we have the best possible outcome in the circumstances.
Sir Bill Jeffrey and Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup have written to all Defence Personnel outlining the key outcomes of the review. The full text of their letter can be found below.
There will be some major changes to force elements of all three Services to enable them to meet future force structures. These are set out in the PUS/CDS message.
The Review will lead to reductions in manpower over the next five years across all three Services and the civilians in Defence.
- The Royal Navy will reduce by around 5,000 personnel
- The Army by 7,000
- The RAF by 5,000,
- Civilians by 25,000
A study will be undertaken by the leadership of the regular and Reserves into the future role and structure of the Reserves. We expect this study to take about six months.
Changes on this scale cannot be managed by the usual manning regulators. A redundancy scheme will be run for Service Personnel and a paid Early Release Scheme for civilians in accordance with the usual arrangements for such schemes, including - in the case of civilians - consultation with the Trade Unions.
Details of the Scheme for the Armed Forces will be published later today. Details for a civilian early release scheme will follow once consultation with the Trade Unions has concluded, but the broad principles for a scheme will also be published today.
Much effort will now be required to work through the detailed implications of the various SDSR decisions and their implementation.
Part of this will be the work of the Defence Reform Unit, which is looking at the organisation of MOD and will report in July 2011. This will ensure Defence is delivered as effectively and efficiently as possible. Reforms will be implemented as the review progresses.
Permanent Secretary, Sir Bill Jeffrey and Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup have written the following to all Defence Personnel to give the top line details of the outcomes:
"Today the Government announces the outcome of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).
"The Government has made clear from the outset its determination to address the fiscal deficit facing the country, and that doing this will involve making some very difficult decisions about spending across all Departments. Defence is no exception.
"We in Defence have also faced additional challenges. We have needed to restructure our Forces to meet the changing character of conflict. We are heavily committed on operations around the world, foremost among them a demanding mission in Afghanistan, where we are determined to lay the military foundation for strategic success.
"The Government has made clear from the outset its determination to address the fiscal deficit facing the country, and that doing this will involve making some very difficult decisions about spending across all Departments. Defence is no exception.
"We in Defence have also faced additional challenges. We have needed to restructure our Forces to meet the changing character of conflict. We are heavily committed on operations around the world, foremost among them a demanding mission in Afghanistan, where we are determined to lay the military foundation for strategic success.
HM Ships Dauntless and Daring conducting manoeuvres south of the Isle of Wight [Picture: LA(Phot) Ian Simpson, Crown Copyright/MOD 2010]
"And we have had to tackle substantial existing pressures in the Defence budget. While the savings sought from Defence have been lower than from most other Departments, these factors have added considerably to the difficulties of delivering the SDSR, and tough choices have had to be made.
"We, together with the Service Chiefs and other members of the Defence Board, have been closely involved throughout the Review. We have had two main priorities. First, to ensure that our mission in Afghanistan is protected, and second, to make sure that we emerge with a coherent Defence capability in 2020.
"We are content that the outcome of this Review does the first and puts us on a path to achieving the second. There are inevitably elements of the final package that we would have liked to avoid. But the bottom line is that we cannot go on with an unaffordable programme.
"The outcome of the Review will see reductions in manpower across all three Services and the civilians in Defence. The Royal Navy will reduce by around 5,000 personnel, the Army by 7,000, the RAF by 5,000, and the civilians by 25,000 over the next five years. No changes will be made to front line Army, Royal Marine or RAF Regiment units while operations in Afghanistan continue.
"There will be some major changes to force elements of all three Services to enable them to meet future force structures:
"Royal Navy
"The Royal Navy will have a number of capabilities, including the Trident Force, based around the four Vanguard-class submarines, one of which is always on patrol.
"The Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier will give the UK political and military flexibility in responding to crises. It will routinely have 12 Joint Strike Fighters, plus helicopters embarked for operations. The aircraft's 700 mile range over land and sea, will enable it to carry out a broad range of missions.
"The Royal Navy will be equipped with 19 frigates and destroyers to protect a Naval Task Group and meet our standing commitments at home and overseas. These will include 6 new Type 45 destroyers and new Type 26 frigates.
"This force, though smaller than currently, will provide military flexibility and choice across a variety of operations from full-scale warfare, through coercion and reassurance to presence, and maritime security (in particular protecting trade and energy supplies).
"Seven new Astute class submarines will contribute to the protection of our nuclear deterrent and Naval Task Groups
"3 Commando Brigade will provide one element of our very high readiness response force.
"The Royal Marines will be able to land and sustain a Commando Group by helicopter, and with protective vehicles, logistics and command and control support from a specialist landing and command ship.
"In order to meet this new structure the Royal Navy will:
"We, together with the Service Chiefs and other members of the Defence Board, have been closely involved throughout the Review. We have had two main priorities. First, to ensure that our mission in Afghanistan is protected, and second, to make sure that we emerge with a coherent Defence capability in 2020.
"We are content that the outcome of this Review does the first and puts us on a path to achieving the second. There are inevitably elements of the final package that we would have liked to avoid. But the bottom line is that we cannot go on with an unaffordable programme.
"The outcome of the Review will see reductions in manpower across all three Services and the civilians in Defence. The Royal Navy will reduce by around 5,000 personnel, the Army by 7,000, the RAF by 5,000, and the civilians by 25,000 over the next five years. No changes will be made to front line Army, Royal Marine or RAF Regiment units while operations in Afghanistan continue.
"There will be some major changes to force elements of all three Services to enable them to meet future force structures:
"Royal Navy
"The Royal Navy will have a number of capabilities, including the Trident Force, based around the four Vanguard-class submarines, one of which is always on patrol.
"The Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier will give the UK political and military flexibility in responding to crises. It will routinely have 12 Joint Strike Fighters, plus helicopters embarked for operations. The aircraft's 700 mile range over land and sea, will enable it to carry out a broad range of missions.
"The Royal Navy will be equipped with 19 frigates and destroyers to protect a Naval Task Group and meet our standing commitments at home and overseas. These will include 6 new Type 45 destroyers and new Type 26 frigates.
"This force, though smaller than currently, will provide military flexibility and choice across a variety of operations from full-scale warfare, through coercion and reassurance to presence, and maritime security (in particular protecting trade and energy supplies).
"Seven new Astute class submarines will contribute to the protection of our nuclear deterrent and Naval Task Groups
"3 Commando Brigade will provide one element of our very high readiness response force.
"The Royal Marines will be able to land and sustain a Commando Group by helicopter, and with protective vehicles, logistics and command and control support from a specialist landing and command ship.
"In order to meet this new structure the Royal Navy will:
- Reduce Royal Navy service personnel by around 5,000 to a total of about 30,000 by 2015, and with an assumption, for now, of a requirement of about 29,000 by 2020;
- Decommission HMS Ark Royal immediately;
- Decommission either the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious following a short study of which would provide the most effective helicopter platform capability, and place one landing and command ship at extended readiness;
- Decommission 4 frigates and a Bay-class amphibious support ship;
- Rationalise the Royal Navy estate.
"Army
"The Army will be structured around 5 multi-role brigades each including reconnaissance, armoured mechanised and light infantry forces with supporting units of equipment and enablers. We will keep one brigade at high readiness available for an intervention operation and four in support to ensure our ability to sustain an enduring stabilisation operation.
"The Army will retain 16 Air Assault Brigade, a high-readiness intervention brigade with supporting units, trained and equipped to be one of the first ground forces to intervene in a new conflict.
"The Army will also retain the ability to command operations at very senior level through the UK-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) headquarters (part of NATO). And we will retain our capacity to deliver one UK, fully deployable, senior level (divisional) headquarters, and the ability to regenerate a second deployable divisional headquarters.
"In order to meet this new structure the Army will:
"The Army will be structured around 5 multi-role brigades each including reconnaissance, armoured mechanised and light infantry forces with supporting units of equipment and enablers. We will keep one brigade at high readiness available for an intervention operation and four in support to ensure our ability to sustain an enduring stabilisation operation.
"The Army will retain 16 Air Assault Brigade, a high-readiness intervention brigade with supporting units, trained and equipped to be one of the first ground forces to intervene in a new conflict.
"The Army will also retain the ability to command operations at very senior level through the UK-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) headquarters (part of NATO). And we will retain our capacity to deliver one UK, fully deployable, senior level (divisional) headquarters, and the ability to regenerate a second deployable divisional headquarters.
"In order to meet this new structure the Army will:
- Reduce by around 7,000 to about 95,000 personnel by 2015, but with no changes to combat units involved in Afghanistan, and an assumption, for now, of a requirement of about 94,000 by 2020;
- Reduce by one the number of deployable brigades, as we restructure to five multi-role brigades;
- Reduce our holdings of Challenger 2 tanks by around 40% and our heavy artillery by around 35%;
- Significantly reduce our non-deployable regional administrative structure;
- Rationalise our deployable headquarters by reducing the communications and logistics support to Headquarters ARRC and convert the second of our operational divisional headquarters to a force preparation role.
A Royal Air Force Typhoon from RAF Coningsby during Exercise Green Flag at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, USA [Picture: Sergeant Gordy Elias, Crown Copyright/MOD 2009]
"Royal Air Force
"The Royal Air Force's future capabilities will include a fleet of two of the most capable fast jets anywhere in the world: a modernised multi-role Typhoon fleet and the Joint Strike Fighter to provide Combat ISTAR capabilities.
"It will also have strategic surveillance and intelligence platforms as part of our broader ISTAR capability including: E-3D Sentry AWACS to provide airborne command, control and surveillance; Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft to provide independent strategic intelligence gathering; and a range of remotely piloted air systems.
"The air transport fleet will be upgraded with the addition of A400M transport aircraft and A330 future strategic tanker and transport aircraft as well as the planned C17 fleet. These aircraft will enable us to deploy rapidly, support and recover UK forces and their equipment anywhere in the world, and provide airborne refuelling to maximise the range and endurance of our aircraft.
"The support helicopter capability (both RAF and RN) will also provide battlefield mobility from land and sea, based on Chinook heavy and Merlin medium-lift helicopters, able to move personnel and equipment rapidly over considerable distances.
"In addition, RAF Regiment Force Protection squadrons at high readiness will protect deployed aircraft and personnel in hostile areas and provide elements of Defence's Joint CBRN detection capabilities.
"In order to meet this new structure the Royal Air Force will:
"The Royal Air Force's future capabilities will include a fleet of two of the most capable fast jets anywhere in the world: a modernised multi-role Typhoon fleet and the Joint Strike Fighter to provide Combat ISTAR capabilities.
"It will also have strategic surveillance and intelligence platforms as part of our broader ISTAR capability including: E-3D Sentry AWACS to provide airborne command, control and surveillance; Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft to provide independent strategic intelligence gathering; and a range of remotely piloted air systems.
"The air transport fleet will be upgraded with the addition of A400M transport aircraft and A330 future strategic tanker and transport aircraft as well as the planned C17 fleet. These aircraft will enable us to deploy rapidly, support and recover UK forces and their equipment anywhere in the world, and provide airborne refuelling to maximise the range and endurance of our aircraft.
"The support helicopter capability (both RAF and RN) will also provide battlefield mobility from land and sea, based on Chinook heavy and Merlin medium-lift helicopters, able to move personnel and equipment rapidly over considerable distances.
"In addition, RAF Regiment Force Protection squadrons at high readiness will protect deployed aircraft and personnel in hostile areas and provide elements of Defence's Joint CBRN detection capabilities.
"In order to meet this new structure the Royal Air Force will:
- Reduce by around 5000 personnel to about 33,000 by 2015 , and with an assumption, for now, of a requirement of about 31,500 by 2020;
- Withdraw the C-130 Hercules transport fleet 10 years earlier than planned as we transition to the more capable and larger A400M;
- Withdraw the Sentinel surveillance aircraft once it is no longer required to support operations in Afghanistan;
- Rationalise the RAF estate;
- Retain Tornados, which will continue to operate in Afghanistan;
- Remove Harrier from service in the transition to a future fast jet force of Typhoon and JSF. This will mean a gap for carrier fast jet operations. JSF, like Harrier, will be operated jointly by RAF and Royal Navy pilots;
- Not bring into service the Nimrod MRA4;
- Withdraw VC-10 and the 3 variants of Tristar aircraft from 2013 as we transition towards the more capable A330 future strategic transport and tanker aircraft.
"In addition, across Defence, some headroom has been found for uplifts in priority areas, for example mental health, cyber capability and Special Forces.
"The Reserve Forces make an invaluable contribution to Defence. Reservists are performing outstandingly in Afghanistan. There is a strong case for reviewing whether our Reserve Forces are properly structured for the type of conflict we envisage in future, so that we make best use of their skills and capabilities whilst moving towards a more efficient structure.
"A study will be undertaken by the leadership of the regular forces and Reserves into the future role and structure of the Reserves. We expect this to take about six months. We are determined that the reservist experience will remain valuable and high quality for Defence, the individual, and employers alike.
"We know that some of the changes being made will be unsettling and unpopular. We understand this, and will ensure that where reductions are made, commitments are adjusted accordingly to keep them in balance with the new force structure.
"Changes on this scale cannot be managed by the usual manning regulators. A redundancy scheme will be run for Service personnel and a paid Early Release scheme for civilians in accordance with the usual arrangements for such schemes, including - in the case of civilians - consultation with Trades Unions.
"Details of the scheme for the Armed Forces will be published later today. Details for a civilian early release scheme will follow once consultation with the Trades Unions has concluded, but our plan is to make as many of the reductions as possible by natural wastage and voluntary (rather than compulsory) early release.
"The SDSR White Paper provides the high level direction for Defence, but there is much work still to be done to work through the detailed implications, including the implications for staff. The work of the Defence Reform Review will also bring change to the organisation and structure of Defence.
"This review is due to conclude in July 2011 but we expect to announce decisions on key areas over the coming months as the direction becomes clear, rather than waiting for the final report. All of this work will be overseen by the Defence Reform Unit. We will provide further information for staff as the work of the DRR progresses.
"More broadly everyone in Defence now has a part to play in implementing the SDSR. In some areas the direction is clear, and you may be responsible for making it happen. In other areas, where the picture is less clear, you may be helping to work through options for change.
"But what is clear is that we need to reduce the running costs of Defence very significantly, to enable the resources that we have to be focused on the front line, and that we will need to radically reshape the organisation to make that happen.
"The Defence Board will lead this effort, but it is also very much the responsibility of every one of us, wherever we work. It is more important than ever that we all think long and hard about everything we do, whether it is all necessary, and whether we could do it more economically.
"The Government has committed to a full Defence Review every five years. We welcome that. But it does not mean that there will not be adjustments in the interim and we will need to continue to adapt our Forces to meet changing requirements as they occur.
"We are most grateful to everyone in Defence for their patience and forbearance during what has been a very difficult period - not helped by considerable and often inaccurate media speculation about what the outcome will be. As a result of the SDSR our Armed Forces and civilian staff will be smaller - there is no denying that.
"But it is important that you all understand that we will emerge from the SDSR with British Armed Forces that remain highly capable, are able to support our interests at home and abroad, are balanced and are affordable. They will provide a firm basis from which to reconstitute capability, should the strategic environment require and fiscal conditions allow. We will also have a professional civil service, organised to manage a key Department of State and to support the armed forces.
"Implementing these decisions will be a huge task, which will now fall to our successors, General Sir David Richards and Ursula Brennan. We know that they are committed, as we have been, to do their best for Defence and the people on whom our future depends."
"The Reserve Forces make an invaluable contribution to Defence. Reservists are performing outstandingly in Afghanistan. There is a strong case for reviewing whether our Reserve Forces are properly structured for the type of conflict we envisage in future, so that we make best use of their skills and capabilities whilst moving towards a more efficient structure.
"A study will be undertaken by the leadership of the regular forces and Reserves into the future role and structure of the Reserves. We expect this to take about six months. We are determined that the reservist experience will remain valuable and high quality for Defence, the individual, and employers alike.
"We know that some of the changes being made will be unsettling and unpopular. We understand this, and will ensure that where reductions are made, commitments are adjusted accordingly to keep them in balance with the new force structure.
"Changes on this scale cannot be managed by the usual manning regulators. A redundancy scheme will be run for Service personnel and a paid Early Release scheme for civilians in accordance with the usual arrangements for such schemes, including - in the case of civilians - consultation with Trades Unions.
"Details of the scheme for the Armed Forces will be published later today. Details for a civilian early release scheme will follow once consultation with the Trades Unions has concluded, but our plan is to make as many of the reductions as possible by natural wastage and voluntary (rather than compulsory) early release.
"The SDSR White Paper provides the high level direction for Defence, but there is much work still to be done to work through the detailed implications, including the implications for staff. The work of the Defence Reform Review will also bring change to the organisation and structure of Defence.
"This review is due to conclude in July 2011 but we expect to announce decisions on key areas over the coming months as the direction becomes clear, rather than waiting for the final report. All of this work will be overseen by the Defence Reform Unit. We will provide further information for staff as the work of the DRR progresses.
"More broadly everyone in Defence now has a part to play in implementing the SDSR. In some areas the direction is clear, and you may be responsible for making it happen. In other areas, where the picture is less clear, you may be helping to work through options for change.
"But what is clear is that we need to reduce the running costs of Defence very significantly, to enable the resources that we have to be focused on the front line, and that we will need to radically reshape the organisation to make that happen.
"The Defence Board will lead this effort, but it is also very much the responsibility of every one of us, wherever we work. It is more important than ever that we all think long and hard about everything we do, whether it is all necessary, and whether we could do it more economically.
"The Government has committed to a full Defence Review every five years. We welcome that. But it does not mean that there will not be adjustments in the interim and we will need to continue to adapt our Forces to meet changing requirements as they occur.
"We are most grateful to everyone in Defence for their patience and forbearance during what has been a very difficult period - not helped by considerable and often inaccurate media speculation about what the outcome will be. As a result of the SDSR our Armed Forces and civilian staff will be smaller - there is no denying that.
"But it is important that you all understand that we will emerge from the SDSR with British Armed Forces that remain highly capable, are able to support our interests at home and abroad, are balanced and are affordable. They will provide a firm basis from which to reconstitute capability, should the strategic environment require and fiscal conditions allow. We will also have a professional civil service, organised to manage a key Department of State and to support the armed forces.
"Implementing these decisions will be a huge task, which will now fall to our successors, General Sir David Richards and Ursula Brennan. We know that they are committed, as we have been, to do their best for Defence and the people on whom our future depends."
Here you go Tony!
19 October 2010, 05:42 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (40)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Marlow, Bucks.
Posts: 6,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Armed Forces will carry on doing what they always have done. Adapt and overcome, use the little resources they are given to greatest effect. One of the reasons why we are the greatest fighting force on this Earth.
Short sighted the aircrat carrier situation may be, but I presume it has been forecasted that we will be throwing all our eggs in an Afghanistan shaped basket until further notice.
One that did surprise me was the personnel losses in the Army. Ditch some Generals would be a good start, make the remaining command more staff, amalgamate fighting forces etc. just keep the troops on the ground.
Short sighted the aircrat carrier situation may be, but I presume it has been forecasted that we will be throwing all our eggs in an Afghanistan shaped basket until further notice.
One that did surprise me was the personnel losses in the Army. Ditch some Generals would be a good start, make the remaining command more staff, amalgamate fighting forces etc. just keep the troops on the ground.
19 October 2010, 05:49 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harrier is a multi-role aircraft.
Trending Topics
19 October 2010, 05:54 PM
#8
The Armed Forces will carry on doing what they always have done. Adapt and overcome, use the little resources they are given to greatest effect. One of the reasons why we are the greatest fighting force on this Earth.
Short sighted the aircrat carrier situation may be, but I presume it has been forecasted that we will be throwing all our eggs in an Afghanistan shaped basket until further notice.
One that did surprise me was the personnel losses in the Army. Ditch some Generals would be a good start, make the remaining command more staff, amalgamate fighting forces etc. just keep the troops on the ground.
Short sighted the aircrat carrier situation may be, but I presume it has been forecasted that we will be throwing all our eggs in an Afghanistan shaped basket until further notice.
One that did surprise me was the personnel losses in the Army. Ditch some Generals would be a good start, make the remaining command more staff, amalgamate fighting forces etc. just keep the troops on the ground.
The Army will be equipped better but be lighter, but with a bigger and better capability to observe ground without deploying manpower. Be more manouverable and deployable. And still retain the ability to hold ground, only the infantry can do this.
Big tanks create a presence and have firepower, mobility and protection. But so does a UAV with a few missiles attached and you'll never know where it came from, psychologically a real winner. Light recce is a different kettle of fish and will continue to be used extensively.
Similarly, precision bombing by drones allows the withdrawal of big area weapon (Arty) and aircraft systems. And they are so much cheaper and less manpower intensive to maintain.
And as always we will abide by the "If the sh*t fits............were wear it".
Not political, we do what the elected government want us to do.
19 October 2010, 06:08 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was rather hoping that the JSF was going to be scrapped and replaced with F-18s. OK, that would annoy the Americans as we have pledged to order a lot of JSFs, but the F-18s are vastly cheaper and much simpler to operate.
The fact that the new carriers are being built without the ability to produce steam, and therefore cannot have a steam catapult should not be too much of an issue. Electromagnetic catapults are well under way.
I'd honestly rather have two carriers both with F18s and no deployment gap, than one active carrier, one mothballed carrier, and a lot of over priced JSFs. The cost for the both carriers with F18s is LESS than a single carrier with JSF. Those JSFs are just massively pricey
The F18 is an average jet, but who are we going to fight that needs a better plane?
The fact that the new carriers are being built without the ability to produce steam, and therefore cannot have a steam catapult should not be too much of an issue. Electromagnetic catapults are well under way.
I'd honestly rather have two carriers both with F18s and no deployment gap, than one active carrier, one mothballed carrier, and a lot of over priced JSFs. The cost for the both carriers with F18s is LESS than a single carrier with JSF. Those JSFs are just massively pricey
The F18 is an average jet, but who are we going to fight that needs a better plane?
19 October 2010, 06:10 PM
#11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonne...-8B_Harrier_II
The Yanks are keeping them.
19 October 2010, 06:15 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 October 2010, 06:19 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was rather hoping that the JSF was going to be scrapped and replaced with F-18s. OK, that would annoy the Americans as we have pledged to order a lot of JSFs, but the F-18s are vastly cheaper and much simpler to operate.
The fact that the new carriers are being built without the ability to produce steam, and therefore cannot have a steam catapult should not be too much of an issue. Electromagnetic catapults are well under way.
I'd honestly rather have two carriers both with F18s and no deployment gap, than one active carrier, one mothballed carrier, and a lot of over priced JSFs. The cost for the both carriers with F18s is LESS than a single carrier with JSF. Those JSFs are just massively pricey
The F18 is an average jet, but who are we going to fight that needs a better plane?
The fact that the new carriers are being built without the ability to produce steam, and therefore cannot have a steam catapult should not be too much of an issue. Electromagnetic catapults are well under way.
I'd honestly rather have two carriers both with F18s and no deployment gap, than one active carrier, one mothballed carrier, and a lot of over priced JSFs. The cost for the both carriers with F18s is LESS than a single carrier with JSF. Those JSFs are just massively pricey
The F18 is an average jet, but who are we going to fight that needs a better plane?
It's about value for money.
19 October 2010, 06:20 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its more important to have supersonic Air to Ground (tornado) and supersonic Air to Air (Eurofighter, JSF/F18) than it is to have the harrier.
The harrier is not as good as in either of the above classes as the specialist aircraft. IF the harrier gets close, and that is IF, its vertical flight characteristics can help. But with modern radar and missiles, I not want to be the one in the harrier.
OK, the harrier is good at close support for our troops, but that is not enough. Troops should be getting drones anyway.
The harrier is not as good as in either of the above classes as the specialist aircraft. IF the harrier gets close, and that is IF, its vertical flight characteristics can help. But with modern radar and missiles, I not want to be the one in the harrier.
OK, the harrier is good at close support for our troops, but that is not enough. Troops should be getting drones anyway.
19 October 2010, 06:26 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
We need to get rid of the class seperation which is rife in the forces .... too many generals not enough cannon fodder.
Officers Mess Bar ... Pint of Beer 50p - Shorts 35p ... let's charge them proper prices! Why should we fund Officers getting rat-arsed?!
The whole thing needs a root and file clear out .. too many ***** doing sweet **** all .. too many hangers on .. too many plum in the mouth Tory bred ***** unfortunately.
The forces could be slimmed by 50% by getting rid of the fat and there is loads of fat!! Put the money to the boys at the front ............ not into the Officers Bar!!
Officers Mess Bar ... Pint of Beer 50p - Shorts 35p ... let's charge them proper prices! Why should we fund Officers getting rat-arsed?!
The whole thing needs a root and file clear out .. too many ***** doing sweet **** all .. too many hangers on .. too many plum in the mouth Tory bred ***** unfortunately.
The forces could be slimmed by 50% by getting rid of the fat and there is loads of fat!! Put the money to the boys at the front ............ not into the Officers Bar!!
19 October 2010, 06:30 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that is good news. Much cheaper to buy and much simpler to look after. I hope its as good as they make out it will be. We are just going to have to cross our fingers while we wait for it to arrive...if ever.
19 October 2010, 06:34 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new carriers won't not have any aircraft - they'll simply have helicopters only until the JSF's arrive.
Pleased to hear the Tornado's are being retained as I have a mate who flys them up at Lossie, but they are due an upgrade in the near future to extend their operating lifetime (costing around £10m per aircraft) and there is no mention if this will continue, or if all aircraft will be upgraded if it does go ahead.
The Harrier is a very old design Tornado's are currently deployed in action in the middle east, so can understand why they've cut the harrier.
Pleased to hear the Tornado's are being retained as I have a mate who flys them up at Lossie, but they are due an upgrade in the near future to extend their operating lifetime (costing around £10m per aircraft) and there is no mention if this will continue, or if all aircraft will be upgraded if it does go ahead.
The Harrier is a very old design Tornado's are currently deployed in action in the middle east, so can understand why they've cut the harrier.
19 October 2010, 06:34 PM
#21
We need to get rid of the class seperation which is rife in the forces .... too many generals not enough cannon fodder.
Officers Mess Bar ... Pint of Beer 50p - Shorts 35p ... let's charge them proper prices! Why should we fund Officers getting rat-arsed?!
The whole thing needs a root and file clear out .. too many ***** doing sweet **** all .. too many hangers on .. too many plum in the mouth Tory bred ***** unfortunately.
The forces could be slimmed by 50% by getting rid of the fat and there is loads of fat!! Put the money to the boys at the front ............ not into the Officers Bar!!
Officers Mess Bar ... Pint of Beer 50p - Shorts 35p ... let's charge them proper prices! Why should we fund Officers getting rat-arsed?!
The whole thing needs a root and file clear out .. too many ***** doing sweet **** all .. too many hangers on .. too many plum in the mouth Tory bred ***** unfortunately.
The forces could be slimmed by 50% by getting rid of the fat and there is loads of fat!! Put the money to the boys at the front ............ not into the Officers Bar!!
Remember when Labour tried to trash General Dannett over his expenses and they where caught cold because he was spending his cash in Lidl.
19 October 2010, 06:36 PM
#22
Pete come out of your cave and see the light. Your living in the dark ages. I wish my mess charged that much but sadly the Labour Government brought in Civilian Contractors to run messes and it's all gone wrong. Over priced, overated and the soldiers hate it.
Remember when Labour tried to trash General Dannett over his expenses and they where caught cold because he was spending his cash in Lidl.
Remember when Labour tried to trash General Dannett over his expenses and they where caught cold because he was spending his cash in Lidl.
19 October 2010, 06:41 PM
#23
The new carriers won't not have any aircraft - they'll simply have helicopters only until the JSF's arrive.
Pleased to hear the Tornado's are being retained as I have a mate who flys them up at Lossie, but they are due an upgrade in the near future to extend their operating lifetime (costing around £10m per aircraft) and there is no mention if this will continue, or if all aircraft will be upgraded if it does go ahead.
The Harrier is a very old design Tornado's are currently deployed in action in the middle east, so can understand why they've cut the harrier.
Pleased to hear the Tornado's are being retained as I have a mate who flys them up at Lossie, but they are due an upgrade in the near future to extend their operating lifetime (costing around £10m per aircraft) and there is no mention if this will continue, or if all aircraft will be upgraded if it does go ahead.
The Harrier is a very old design Tornado's are currently deployed in action in the middle east, so can understand why they've cut the harrier.
19 October 2010, 06:46 PM
#24
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete come out of your cave and see the light. Your living in the dark ages. I wish my mess charged that much but sadly the Labour Government brought in Civilian Contractors to run messes and it's all gone wrong. Over priced, overated and the soldiers hate it.
Remember when Labour tried to trash General Dannett over his expenses and they where caught cold because he was spending his cash in Lidl.
Remember when Labour tried to trash General Dannett over his expenses and they where caught cold because he was spending his cash in Lidl.
Nothing to do with Labour, and MOD initiative all the way.....
19 October 2010, 06:46 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its more important to have supersonic Air to Ground (tornado) and supersonic Air to Air (Eurofighter, JSF/F18) than it is to have the harrier.
The harrier is not as good as in either of the above classes as the specialist aircraft. IF the harrier gets close, and that is IF, its vertical flight characteristics can help. But with modern radar and missiles, I not want to be the one in the harrier.
OK, the harrier is good at close support for our troops, but that is not enough. Troops should be getting drones anyway.
The harrier is not as good as in either of the above classes as the specialist aircraft. IF the harrier gets close, and that is IF, its vertical flight characteristics can help. But with modern radar and missiles, I not want to be the one in the harrier.
OK, the harrier is good at close support for our troops, but that is not enough. Troops should be getting drones anyway.
19 October 2010, 06:49 PM
#26
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest threats are Iran and North Korea, we have bases in striking distance of Iran and likewise for NK. Why else do you think we're staying in Afghanistan? Equally why do we need aircraft carriers, not like we plan to repel or attack anyone else over the coming years.
19 October 2010, 06:50 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need to get rid of the class seperation which is rife in the forces .... too many generals not enough cannon fodder.
Officers Mess Bar ... Pint of Beer 50p - Shorts 35p ... let's charge them proper prices! Why should we fund Officers getting rat-arsed?!
The whole thing needs a root and file clear out .. too many ***** doing sweet **** all .. too many hangers on .. too many plum in the mouth Tory bred ***** unfortunately.
The forces could be slimmed by 50% by getting rid of the fat and there is loads of fat!! Put the money to the boys at the front ............ not into the Officers Bar!!
Officers Mess Bar ... Pint of Beer 50p - Shorts 35p ... let's charge them proper prices! Why should we fund Officers getting rat-arsed?!
The whole thing needs a root and file clear out .. too many ***** doing sweet **** all .. too many hangers on .. too many plum in the mouth Tory bred ***** unfortunately.
The forces could be slimmed by 50% by getting rid of the fat and there is loads of fat!! Put the money to the boys at the front ............ not into the Officers Bar!!
When it comes to subsidised bar and food prices, take a look at your politicians, including your heroes.
Les
19 October 2010, 06:52 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also defence is a big part of the economy - loads of skilled jobs, and also defence equipment exports are a massive. Important not to lose these skills and exports.
19 October 2010, 06:53 PM
#29
It wasn't the Government it was DE&S that put the bases out to CRL, that's Catering, Retail and Leisure (regional prime style contracts). The issue sits with the way the MOD procure services, namely the cheapest wins! Therefore the winner charges a low cost for a ****e service.
Nothing to do with Labour, and MOD initiative all the way.....
Nothing to do with Labour, and MOD initiative all the way.....
19 October 2010, 06:54 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: England somewhere
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts