Britain to slash military jobs

[Mister Frag 0]

From http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/21/uk.defense.cuts/index.html

Quote[/b] ]Britain to slash military jobs

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 Posted: 10:59 AM EDT (1459 GMT)

Hoon says military technology "has moved on."

LONDON, England -- Britain is slashing thousands of jobs from its armed forces over the next four years in an effort to save money and revamp the military for modern warfare.

But the government said the cutbacks announced Wednesday were aimed at "support operations," not front-line troops.

Under the plan, Royal Air Force personnel will drop from 48,500 to 41,000, the Royal Navy staff will decline from 37,500 to 36,000 and army troop levels will fall 108,000 to 102,000 by 2008.

In addition, four infantry battalions -- three from England and one from Scotland -- are to be cut, along with four aircraft squadrons over the next three years. At least one airfield will be closed.

Twelve ships and vessels will also be lost in the restructuring.

The defense ministry said the shake-up would not affect the 9,000 British troops currently in Iraq, where Britain has been the top U.S. ally in the coalition.

The restructuring -- first mentioned in a government strategy paper in December -- is seen as an effort to streamline Britain's military and become more technologically advanced to meet the threats of international terrorism and continue to handle peacekeeping commitments.

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said that following the end of the Cold War, military should not be measured in troop numbers, or the number of tanks and warships a country has.

"We measured numbers of people and platforms in the Cold War because we were preparing for an essentially attritional campaign, holding back Soviet forces," Hoon told the Commons.

"That kind of campaign has fortunately passed into history as technology has moved on."

The shake-up also reflects financial pressures on Britain's Ministry of Defence.

Last week, Treasury chief Gordon Brown gave the ministry a 1.4 percent annual real-terms increase in its budget, but demanded Å2.8 billion ($5.2 billion) in savings on procurement of equipment and back-office support by 2007-2008.

However, a committee of lawmakers has warned against cuts, saying British forces, on duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Sierre Leone, Kosovo and Northern Ireland, are over-stretched.

"Troops, both regulars and reserves, are already over-stretched. Cutting the number of boots on the ground, ships or aircraft, are not sensible options," The Associate Press quoted Bruce George, chairman of the Commons Defense Select Committee, as saying earlier this month.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Insane. Well, the infantry losses are, we don't *really* need many sub hunters.

*edit*

And what bloody new technology? We're still using kit designed from 20 - 80 years ago!

[Shashman 0]

Hip hip hooray for DWPs

I seem to remember similar thinking behind the idea that all manned aircraft were pointless and should be replaced by SAMs....In the 50s

Bah humbug says I

[Paratrooper 0]

This government (the British Labour party) seems intent on taking us into wars while messing the armed forces around. It is no good increasing defence spending if manpower and equipment is being cut back. The money is going on expensive and overdue white elephants like Eurofighter. Bowman (our digital radio system) is still not fully in service and the Apache Longbow debacle is a disgrace.

The Tories are just as bad, promising a freeze in defence spending, which amounts to a savage cut in real terms. I don't know where those of us who are concerned about the armed forces are best to place their vote.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

tbh in the current climate we should be increasing our military spending along with keeping troops levels higher, we should have at least 150,000 combat troops in the army along with 60,000 reserves, its shamefull and it's really making me think twice about voting labour next year, the Labour Gov't keeps sending us in to wars and peacekeeping operations, we cannot do that with decreased troop numbers.

[Paratrooper 0]

tbh in the current climate we should be increasing our military spending along with keeping troops levels higher, we should have at least 150,000 combat troops in the army along with 60,000 reserves, its shamefull and it's really making me think twice about voting labour next year, the Labour Gov't keeps sending us in to wars and peacekeeping operations, we cannot do that with decreased troop numbers.

Just so. It isn't as if the government had a policy of keeping the troops at home. They are commited to sending them on operations all over the world.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

...The money is going on expensive and overdue white elephants like Eurofighter. Bowman (our digital radio system) is still not fully in service and the Apache Longbow debacle is a disgrace.

I'm going to hold a hand up in defence of the British government on the Eurofighter issue.

The reason its overdue is down to international politics screwing it around. I worked for Eurofighter in '99 to late 2000 as Project manager. The Germans (not pointing fingers here) were changing their minds every five minutes. IIRC the German opposition party was making a national issue of the Project and the German government threatened to back out of the project due to public pressure on defence spending (Just like they are doing on A400M for 3 years - I worked at Airbus after Eurofighter).

The reason for the budget overruns was due to two things. One (IMO) admirable. The other: just plain stupid. The First is the UK government stepped up and said they would support the project if the Germans pulled out. They did invest over a billion pounds as a result of delays caused by politicians trying to screw each other over.

The stupid part is the MoD's "Smart procurement system", they left the old system (Which admittedly was sh@te) and tried to implement a totally new set of procedures on a "shoe string" budget. The upshot of this was complete chaos for 5 years. Massive overruns due to badly written contracts and a huge change around of staff - They moved the main procurement offices to Bristol but only 50% of the staff agreed to relocate. Smart Procurement also went on to claim other victims like Bowman and many others.

The worst part of this is having to pay Germany Å128.3million over 3 years due to a penalty clause over work share issues. The irony of all this was the fact that the delay was caused by BAE(UK) having to make vital components that DASA(Ger) were failing to deliver due to political issues. I won’t go into the design screw ups and the issues with Spain and Italy - they’re small change compared to issues with centre fuselage problems.

As for Longbow...that’s down to dumbass MoD requirements planners that don’t listen to the experts in the Army and at Westland. But anyone that has had any dealings with the MoD procurement systems wont be surprised by that.

But heading back to the topic...

...the cuts are supposedly only the (RAF & Naval - don’t know about the army) cuts that would be made at some point in the future as the weapons system is due to be replaced.

Using the Jaguars as an example - they will be phased out of service 4-5 years earlier than planned. The result is a "gap" in strategic and tactical airpower until the replacement systems (JSF? )that would have to be covered by Harrier and Tornados.

I gotta say I'm disgusted by the timing and the way the labour government has done this. But I think most people in the defence industry saw this coming for a while.

Personally I've voting "Raving Looney Party" in the next general election.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

...The money is going on expensive and overdue white elephants like Eurofighter. Bowman (our digital radio system) is still not fully in service and the Apache Longbow debacle is a disgrace.

I'm going to hold a hand up in defence of the British government on the Eurofighter issue.

The reason its overdue is down to international politics screwing it around.  I worked for Eurofighter in '99 to late 2000 as Project manager. The Germans (not pointing fingers here) were changing their minds every five minutes. IIRC the German opposition party was making a national issue of the Project and the German government threatened to back out of the project due to public pressure on defence spending (Just like they are doing on A400M for 3 years - I worked at Airbus after Eurofighter).

The reason for the budget overruns was due to two things.  One (IMO) admirable. The other: just plain stupid.  The First is the UK government stepped up and said they would support the project if the Germans pulled out. They did invest over a billion pounds as a result of delays caused by politicians trying to screw each other over.

The stupid part is the MoD's "Smart procurement system", they left the old system (Which admittedly was sh@te) and tried to implement a totally new set of procedures on a "shoe string" budget.  The upshot of this was complete chaos for 5 years.  Massive overruns due to badly written contracts and a huge change around of staff - They moved the main procurement offices to Bristol but only 50% of the staff agreed to relocate.  Smart Procurement also went on to claim other victims like Bowman and many others.

The worst part of this is having to pay Germany Å128.3million over 3 years due to a penalty clause over work share issues.  The irony of all this was the fact that the delay was caused by BAE(UK) having to make vital components that DASA(Ger) were failing to deliver due to political issues.  I won’t go into the design screw ups and the issues with Spain and Italy - they’re small change compared to issues with centre fuselage problems.

As for Longbow...that’s down to dumbass MoD requirements planners that don’t listen to the experts in the Army and at Westland.  But anyone that has had any dealings with the MoD procurement systems wont be surprised by that.

But heading back to the topic...

...the cuts are supposedly only the (RAF & Naval - don’t know about the army) cuts that would be made at some point in the future as the weapons system is due to be replaced.  

Using the Jaguars as an example - they will be phased out of service 4-5 years earlier than planned.  The result is a "gap" in strategic and tactical airpower until the replacement systems (JSF?    )that would have to be covered by Harrier and Tornados.

I gotta say I'm disgusted by the timing and the way the labour government has done this.  But I think most people in the defence industry saw this coming for a while.

Personally I've voting "Raving Looney Party" in the next general election.

anyone with a cat as there leader has my vote

Oooo that one with the germans gets my blood boiling, also the Army is loosing 2,000 personel, IIRC there was a report that stated we needed at least 120,000 and 60,000 reserves or i think it was a statement that it would never drop below that, but yea at the moment IMHO we are deeply short of troops, equipment and money.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Here's an interesting quote from a member of my clan. He's ex-Navy but has now joined the TA (Territorial Army)

Quote[/b] ]Basically the MOD mobilised 9000 TA staff during the latest gulf war because for the first time ever they (the Army) are under 100,000 members which really means we are no longer an Army but classed as a militia its only because that we have 75000 reservists that the numbers still make us an Army.

Makes you think. If this was the case last year. Whats going to happen once the muppets in whitehall get through with the armed forces?

...An armed Scout Group? With a sections of 'Brownies' for Fire support?

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

fucking distgustin is all i can say, makes me think when i leave uni and sign up should i bother or should i look abroad?

[Brutal_Impact 0]

BOO!!!

This sucks, I feel sorry for the soldiers who would lose their jobs.

Hey, they can at least join the French Foreign Legion

[ran 0]

fucking distgustin is all i can say, makes me think when i leave uni and sign up should i bother or should i look abroad?

We"re always looking for cheap cannon fodd... erm, volunteers for the French Foreign Legion I mean.

If you are masochist (for the enlisted) or a sadist (for the warrants)

If you like weird looking uniforms and especially funky looking hats

If you like moving around (a couple hundred kilometers by foot)

If you like trips abroad (in shitty and often too warm places)

If you like sand, mud, sweat, tears, and blood (traditionnal recipe for a Legion soup speciality ... heh)

there's a job waiting for you !

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

do you know what makes me sad, after this it will be the 1st time since the 1800's that the french will have a larger navy.

[Munk 0]

Hoon, what a wanker...

[nolips71 0]

Hoon, what a wanker...

agreed

[ran 0]

do you know what makes me sad, after this it will be the 1st time since the 1800's that the french will have a larger navy.

AH !

Well, all that reminds me of the pre-crimean war british army

there had to be the slaughter of a cavalry brigade to make things change ... heh

[mad_mike 0]

am i the only person that gets that nasty feeling that bliar's going to end up picking a fight with some country that we cant win

also didnt they just upgrade the jaguar strike and recon aircraft recently (ie upgraded engines or something)

[nolips71 0]

i think they did. its equally as silly as getting rid of the sea harriers

[mad_mike 0]

so now britains not going to have any real supersonic strike aircraft i know the tornado can prefrom ground attack operations but its primary job is air superiority, also the harrier is really to slow its ok if AAA defence is poor ie iraq but but anywhere that has a decent AAA defence you want as much speed as possible to get in and straight back out again in a less time as possible.

[ran 0]

we'll can always lend you something ... we have a few Mirage 3 and a shitload of iron bombs stored somewhere .... heh

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

so now britains not going to have any real supersonic strike aircraft i know the tornado can prefrom ground attack operations but its primary job is air superiority, also the harrier is really to slow its ok if AAA defence is poor ie iraq but but anywhere that has a decent AAA defence you want as much speed as possible to get in and straight back out again in a less time as possible.

JSF mate, it's the replacement for the Harrier.

[mad_mike 0]

yeah but anit likely to get that any time soon ive got a nasty euro fighter feeling about it

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

yeah but anit likely to get that any time soon ive got a nasty euro fighter feeling about it

it won't be a Euro Fighter type thing, it aint got the germans involved, along with us actually needing it.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

The Jaguar's need replacing anyway. BUT, I think they pushed it a little too soon, they should have at least waited till we had some Eurofighter squadrons at full operation level before even thinking about it. The JSF won't be here untill around 1010 either so we have a long wait, it's not even 100% certain the things will go into full production, but hey, let's let the Americans use their money instead on the testing and so on lol (although they're being made by Lockheed Martin which is owned by BAe systems... is there any military contractor they don't have a slice of?)

As far as I know the army isn't getting massive cuts, only in administration area's, as 3 or 4 regiments are being merged into 1, so I don't think army "soldier" numbers will be affected.

I don't want to sound bad here but I think we're turning into America, depending more on technology than the skills of the men on the ground who have to do the real work. That's one thing that makes the British armed forces renouned around the world for the quality of it's men on the ground and their experience. The British Army has been in combat every sinlge year since like the 1600's apart from a year in the 1960's (think it was 65).

Anyway in short, the cut's = bad, but in the long run I think the better equipment that will replace some of the personnel will help in at least modernising. I don't understand why we're getting rid of the frigates and cruisers though. They have a good 10 years service left in them so I'd have thought they'd keep them there for another 5-6 years at least for when our new carriers and cruisers come into service with the JSF.

[Bordoy 0]

I think this is a disgrace, if we look over the pond the US are making the US Army and Marines even larger. The British Army is already over strectched so smaller troop numbers is wrong. Getting rid of 4 regiments/batallions which are historical to Britain is wrong choice as we are going on more deployments around the world so less "Groups" to use. I can say the same things about the Royal Navy and RAF. Also we are getting rid of Air defence so the goverment is basically gambling we dont have any air attacks on us or our troops.

We need larger numbers in all 3 services, but i would like to see Hoon go n leave his post.