Britain to slash military jobs

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

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...

Erm no its not exactly.

The Tornado F.3 is an Air Defence platform.  Its role is Combat Air Patrol and 'Air superiority'

The Tornado GR4 is a Strike platform.  It remeains argueably the best multi purpose bombing and Interdiction aircraft int he world.

The main failings of both airframes are that they handle like a double decker bus at speed - ie slowly.  And that it has limited internal Fuel limiting its range.  Its quoted ranges assuem a loadout including 2x 1500L Fuel tanks.  You'll never see a Tornado in operational duty without them.

RAF Tornado F3 Webpage

RAF Tornado GR4 Webpage

As for summurised detaisl of the changes read THIS - Geof Hoon's Speech

The Army and Navy will lose around 1500 people each - The RAF 7500. The MoD will cut over 15,000 jobs both in Civvy and Military Staff.

PDF File - MoD Manpower Changes "Fact Sheet" 181Kb

[Madus_Maximus 0]

One force is benefiting from all this by the way... the Royal Marines, they're getting better funding now and they see them as the future to engagements, as they're generally the first force in anyway.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

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

The Sea Harriers aren going anywhere until either the GR9 or JSF is available. That wont be atleast 2010.

Re Jaguars - They just (last 3 years) underwent a 'Mid Life Update' - New engines and avionics upgrades. It went over budget due to the RAF having to rework alot of the mistakes the civilian contractors made. The upshot was that the Jaguar Fleet wasnt upto full/acceptable operational standards. Hence the decision to kill them off 5 years early.

RE JSF - Its already a political program - US congress is/has been questioning the need for the actual program and its numbers. But it looks like there will produce the aircraft no matter what but in a greatly reduced number. Circa 600 as oppsoed to the forecast of 2000+ airframes in all four derivatives.

From what I've read its got the go ahead and the first tranche of 120(ish) aircraft has been funded but I think the debate swings around the final figure for the cost of development and production.

Navy webiste about JSF

[Jinef 2]

Well basically I am not impressed. Sort out the transport system and the NHS before even touching the military.

I don't like these policies.

Chuck money at the NHS that just pisses it away through beaurocracy and admin and then decide to take away money from the military which is needing it more and more because we are still using 1960's aircraft for the some of the most used RAF squadrons (Sea Kings in SAR - Fuckers are falling apart and they want to prolong them to 2020 ....).

Crappy Privatisation.

Crappy Kit.

Crappy Admin.

Crappy Politicians with little grasp on reality.

Hoon - "Hmm, how do we solve this then .... Ahhh let's rip away the funding, that'll make for an interesting problem for the next party *giggles*"

I know, why don't we just privatise the government!

This country is seriously slipping down the shitter, and the worst part is noone cares. The average British person does not care about politics, they just work Monday to Friday so they can get hammered on Saturday and Sunday. It's a tragic situation.

We might as well just vote in the BNP. I won't care, i'm going to emigrate most probably if this continues.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Not to flame bait here, but I'd like to see some of you lot try and run the country and juggle the budget's and so on.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Actually Overall, the budget for armed forces is to rise by Å3.7bn, from Å29.7bn this year to Å33.4bn by 2007-8, but what good is that without the boot's on the ground to clear up after Hoon's technology has won the war.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Not to flame bait here, but I'd like to see some of you lot try and run the country and juggle the budget's and so on.

well what you do is not piss away the money on bloated project's eg Euro Fighter, look at what rock said 128 million going to the germans when it was the germans asking for more changes which meant delays so we now have to pay them.

[Jinef 2]

There is not really much point in chatting about the different Aircraft, they all fly, cost a lot and kill people. That is coming from an operator.

Let's not turn this thread into a bunch of flight enthusiasts having wet dreams over thrust ratios and ordance designs.

Because quite honestly if you want to sort out the military you -

Focus more on keeping a large but highly trained and well equipped Infantry force. Infantry win wars, they hold ground and kill most enemies - and best of all they are cheap. You get everyone SA80-A2s and make sure anally retentive superiors stop soldiers from doing their roles with painting the grass green and sweeping up unwanted puddles.

Civvy contractors and stuff ... good in many roles but would be more useful in police forces - when a police officer arrests someone he has to do 2 hours of paperwork ... get civvies to do that.

Jags and Tornadoes ... they fly reliably (Well ... the Jags can almost fly reliably) and can carry weapons. Spending billions on new designs and super duper weapons is not good, it's stopping pilots getting flight time. Pilot's need to be trained for these new aircraft you know, it costs another 6 million to train a pilot, another 30 million for an ordnance system and it costs Å40,000 per flight hour for them to fly and maintain a standard. If you add the costs up - it's better to upgrade Tornadoes and Harriers.

Helicopters - A modern fighting force can use helicopters extensively - keep them upgraded with the latest and greatest.

As for buying new airframes, SAR aircraft will be called out roughly 200 - 300 times this month, however ASW helicopters will not sink 200 - 300 enemy submarines this month, actually I doubt they have actually sunk one ever. So it seems illogical that the brand new Merlins are going to the Navy for ASW.

A bit more common sense and reality is needed for the people who make these decisions. Currently it is a clusterfuck. The people who really need the new kit and are putting their lives on the line are being put last, while the officers with a good background and a cushy position behind a office desk have brand new kit chucked at them. It would be no suprise to me if Sodiers on patrol in Iraq have no body armour while engineers in the engine room of a Nuclear Aircraft carrier are being issued it.

[Placebo 29]

We might as well just vote in the BNP. I won't care, i'm going to emigrate most probably if this continues.

Despite the fact I now live in another country I would rather see England sold to Germany for scrap than racist scum like the BNP achieving any form of power. I'd be sorely tempted to cut up my passport and send it to them if that ever happened.

[denoir 0]

Hoon, what a wanker...

agreed

It's a general trend in Europe these days. Sweden is in its third set of cutdowns right now. If we're lucky we can maybe defend ourselves if Lichtenstein was to invade us. To scramble fighters over Stockholm takes lo and behold, over 1 hour. Our hemvärn (equivalent of the TA) is being disbanded etc

You should note that we don't have nuclear weapons, which Britain has. So the conventional forces are our only line of defence.

In Britain, you don't need to worry about being invaded. You have nukes and NATO to back you up. So there's no worry about your security.

It does limit your ability to wage war abroad, but really, how important is that? How much interest do you have today in invading other countries? And even if you do, you are generally just a side-kick to America that gives joint operations an 'international' look. In reality though, they can muster at least 10 times larger forces than Britain can. Don't you think there's better stuff to invest your money on?

In the long run, I see only a wider EU cooperation as a cost efficient solution while preserving some form of strength. Europe is nothing in military strength compared to the US. Yet, we're larger and together spend more money on defence. So the national militaries are way too expensive for what they provide.

[Bordoy 0]

We might as well just vote in the BNP. I won't care, i'm going to emigrate most probably if this continues.

Despite the fact I now live in another country I would rather see England sold to Germany for scrap than racist scum like the BNP achieving any form of power. I'd be sorely tempted to cut up my passport and send it to them if that ever happened.

Dont worry mate, will never happen unless this shit continues and crap asylum policies

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Hoon, what a wanker...

agreed

It's a general trend in Europe these days. Sweden is in its third set of cutdowns right now. If we're lucky we can maybe defend ourselves if Lichtenstein was to invade us. To scramble fighters over Stockholm takes lo and behold, over 1 hour. Our hemvärn (equivalent of the TA) is being disbanded etc

You should note that we don't have nuclear weapons, which Britain has. So the conventional forces are our only line of defence.

In Britain, you don't need to worry about being invaded. You have nukes and NATO to back you up. So there's no worry about your security.

It does limit your ability to wage war abroad, but really, how important is that? How much interest do you have today in invading other countries? And even if you do, you are generally just a side-kick to America that gives joint operations an 'international' look. In reality though, they can muster at least 10 times larger forces than Britain can. Don't you think there's better stuff to invest your money on?

In the long run, I see only a wider EU cooperation as a cost efficient solution while preserving some form of strength. Europe is nothing in military strength compared to the US. Yet, we're larger and together spend more money on defence. So the national militaries are way too expensive for what they provide.

Thing is Denoir, the british Military is extremely efficient and effective at peackeeping and nation building, we are deployed all over the world in doing so, not just Iraq. the fact of the matter is we should increase military spending because of the current climate of conflict, today's conflicts are won with boot's on the ground not soley on technology as Mr Hoon is heading towards. An EU Army is not the solution either.

[ran 0]

We might as well just vote in the BNP. I won't care, i'm going to emigrate most probably if this continues.

Despite the fact I now live in another country I would rather see England sold to Germany for scrap than racist scum like the BNP achieving any form of power.

You kn ow, there's another potential buyer .... for the land which would rightfully be theirs ...

[Bordoy 0]

We might as well just vote in the BNP. I won't care, i'm going to emigrate most probably if this continues.

Despite the fact I now live in another country I would rather see England sold to Germany for scrap than racist scum like the BNP achieving any form of power.

You kn ow, there's another potential buyer .... for the land which would rightfully be theirs ...  

Wasn't the Hundred years war pro-longed because the English kings thought that they had claim to the lands of France and even to the throne?

So we can buy you

[denoir 0]

Thing is Denoir, the british Military is extremely efficient and effective at peackeeping and nation building, we are deployed all over the world in doing so, not just Iraq. the fact of the matter is we should increase military spending because of the current climate of conflict, today's conflicts are won with boot's on the ground not soley on technology as Mr Hoon is heading towards. An EU Army is not the solution either.

Britain has a very competent military and a proud tradition. But it ain't a superpower. It's not capable of conducting military operations alone of the scale needed today. The biggest deployment of UK troops now is in Iraq, and yet it is a token force. The Americans have ten times more troops deployed. While doing their job competently in fact the troops there are little but a token display of international cooperation. Their role is hence more political than being of any military significance. And it's much more expensive per soldier deployed than in the case of the US troops.

The problem in Europe is that we've been fighting since before the Roman empire and we did it quite often. So more or less all European countries have proud military traditions. But looking beyond our national ego, we can see that it is really not cost effective. We dump shitloads of money into having 25 miniature militaries, most with their own logistics, administration and not to mention hardware. It's very expensive and yet the result is insufficient for any of the countries to have a real use of their military. We do peace keeping operations, but for that the existing infrastructure is an overkill. On large operations such as Afghanistan or Iraq, America is providing the main force and none of the European countries are really capable of doing anything on their own.

The only viable solution is to make the whole thing more cost efficient. And this will be at the cost of national pride, but it will be a cheaper system that gives larger resources.

[Mister Frag 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.

Iraq did not have poor air defenses. They got considerable help in beefing up their AA technology after the first Gulf War, especially from the Chinese.

[ran 0]

We might as well just vote in the BNP. I won't care, i'm going to emigrate most probably if this continues.

Despite the fact I now live in another country I would rather see England sold to Germany for scrap than racist scum like the BNP achieving any form of power.

You kn ow, there's another potential buyer .... for the land which would rightfully be theirs ...

Wasn't the Hundred years war pro-longed because the English kings thought that they had claim to the lands of France and even to the throne?

So we can buy you

William the conqueror was a Norman wasn't he ?

Note that in the hundred years war, all it took to change the odds and defeat you was an hysterical teenage girl, a simple sheppherd without any real military skills.

[Bordoy 0]

We might as well just vote in the BNP. I won't care, i'm going to emigrate most probably if this continues.

Despite the fact I now live in another country I would rather see England sold to Germany for scrap than racist scum like the BNP achieving any form of power.

You kn ow, there's another potential buyer .... for the land which would rightfully be theirs ...  

Wasn't the Hundred years war pro-longed because the English kings thought that they had claim to the lands of France and even to the throne?

So we can buy you

William the conqueror was a Norman wasn't he ?

Note that in the hundred years war, all it took to change the odds and defeat you was an hysterical teenage girl, a simple sheppherd without any real military skills.

We still mananged to burn her (i think). The war started with King Edward III of England claiming lands.

On January 19, 1419 Rouen surrendered to Henry V of England, which made Normandy a part of England after over 200 years of French control. Following Henry VI's episode of insanity in 1453 and the subsequent outbreak of the Wars of the Roses, the English were no longer in any position to pursue their claim to the French throne and lost all their land on the continent (except for Calais). Ill feeling between the two nations continued well into the 16th century. England did not formally renounce rights to the French throne until 1800.

William the conqueror didn't take part in the Hundred years war.

Just like to say remember the Agincourt in which 5,900 English troops (mostly Longbowmen) beat 25,000 French troops, with only 400 English casualties. King Henry was almsot beat to the ground but at this moment the archers, taking their hatchets, swords or other weapons, penetrated the gaps in the now disordered French, who could not move to cope with their unarmoured assailants, and were slaughtered or taken prisoner.

I've just been playing Medieval: Total War Viking Invasion, on historical campaign as English and beat the Fench first time at Crecy, Poiters and Agincourt.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Sweden is in its third set of cutdowns right now. If we're lucky we can maybe defend ourselves if Lichtenstein was to invade us. To scramble fighters over Stockholm takes lo and behold, over 1 hour. Our hemvärn (equivalent of the TA) is being disbanded etc

hmmm.....

anyways, as denoir said, this is a trend in EU, and I do believe that it will hopefully vitalize private sector.

[ran 0]

We still mananged to burn her (i think).

Yes, you burnt her, with the help of the Bourguignon traitors

Quote[/b] ]William the conqueror didn't take part in the Hundred years war.

I know, he's the one with his fellow Normans who ameliorated a little bit the english blood in the 1070's He was a vassal of the French king back in the time of his first expeditions accross the channel

But in the end, you limeys lost and France has been freed

[Bordoy 0]

We still mananged to burn her (i think).

Yes, you burnt her, with the help of the Bourguignon traitors

Quote[/b] ]William the conqueror didn't take part in the Hundred years war.

I know, he's the one with his fellow Normans who ameliorated a little bit the english blood in the 1070's He was a vassal of the French king back in the time of his first expeditions accross the channel

But in the end, you limeys lost and France has been freed

Yer we lost

Only because we had the war of the roses, if that didn't happen then it would of been the 200 hundred years war, lol.

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok, ok enough with 100yr war. If you guys want to argue about this, make a mission, put it on a server, play for 100 minutes, ok?

[Bordoy 0]

ok, ok enough with 100yr war. If you guys want to argue about this, make a mission, put it on a server, play for 100 minutes, ok?

We are not argueing we are merely discussing a piece of historical anglo-french history which made modern europe with the rest of Mediaeval heppenings

[ran 0]

ok, ok enough with 100yr war. If you guys want to argue about this, make a mission, put it on a server, play for 100 minutes, ok?

back on-topic

YAY !!! these budget cuts could very well make of France the first European military power !!!!!!!!!!

(see how deep has Europe fallen )

[ralphwiggum 6]

i guess i should have use smiley instead of