Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OK, this is my first 'serious' political thread...
What's your guys views on the proposed MoD cuts? Do we need trident? or 9 astute class submarines?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10960440 for reference

I find it to be sickening that we have so many nuclear weapons (n.b. I dont oppose them btw) and yet few Helicopters, Mine proof vehicles etc.

Why do soldiers do without, so we can have some more subs? We dont need them anymore, or at least not nine, we need stuff for afghanistan, not antarctica, sort the priorities out!

I agree, cuts are needed.

Yes, cuts are needed, but I also think that we need to maintain if not increase spending on equipment that helps and saves the lives of our men on the ground.
I also think it's ludicrous that the MoD has 85,000 civil servants and 100,000 armed soldiers... cue rant about bureacracy.

Cease trident, cut the subs by 1/3 and reinvest half into the special armed services, half into the NHS.

Warfare has shifted now, our theatres aren't open wars against standing armies and navies, we are up against insurgents and dug in militias. Our military model was gears up in the cold war against the soviet empire, it is not well suited to the current climate.

Nukes are currently the greatest war deterrant there is.. but if it does kick off, it'll screw us all.

aptly put as always Dark

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Cease trident, cut the subs by 1/3 and reinvest half into the special armed services, half into the NHS.

Seriously though, plough MORE money into the public sector?!? That is mental. If our government DID decide not to renew Trident (cutting isn't even an option, it's not even on the table), then the money saved should be used to service our country's debts. I think the review should leave our submarines alone - the entire frontline capacity of the RN, even.

Warfare has shifted now, our theatres aren't open wars against standing armies and navies,

At the moment. Although UK forces did fight standing armies last decade, the decade before and the decade before THAT.

we are up against insurgents and dug in militias.

'We' aren't up against anyone MGS - 'we' are siting in the comfort of our homes, typing out opinions onto a wargaming site, whilst others do the fighting for us. Let's remember that. Not being a dick (well, not TRYING to be.. ), but I think it's worth mentioning. What I want is for our government to to make the correct decisions that will give the fighting men and women of our country the best chance of coming home to their loved ones without a flag draped over them. All politics aside, mate.

Our military model was gears up in the cold war against the soviet empire, it is not well suited to the current climate.

That's true. The UK Armed Forces need a strategic reshuffle, fair enough. But we can't sit here and say that our forces will be only fighting insurgencies for the next 20 years. Things change, rapidly, and when you least expect them. I'd like the UK to be prepared for most, if not all, eventualities. I think the procurement side of the MoD needs a root-and-branch makeover, sweeping reform. That could potentially produce big savings. But yeah, we probably don't need hundreds of tanks.

What I want is for our government to to make the correct decisions that will give the fighting men and women of our country the best chance of coming home to their loved ones without a flag draped over them. All politics aside, mate.

Amen

It would be a good start to only invade the right countries.

I can just see landing barges filled to the brim with gauchos and makin' a beeline for the Malvinas right now...

Nothing to worry about there, the Argentinian military has had vast finical problems for over 20 years now. Its stagnated and shrank since 82.

As to the topic. Slashing the ballooning number of civil servants in the MOD is a welcome move. But I fear the Conservatives (and to be fare labour) will do as they have done in the past, and make drastic cuts to the capabilities of the Armed forces only for them to need those very same capabilities a few years later. The cuts too the Navy in the years before the Falklands and the reduction in Helicopters in the past decade, being examples of political cost cutting decisions that ultimately cost people there lives unnecessarily.

Albatross wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Cease trident, cut the subs by 1/3 and reinvest half into the special armed services, half into the NHS.

Seriously though, plough MORE money into the public sector?!? That is mental. If our government DID decide not to renew Trident (cutting isn't even an option, it's not even on the table), then the money saved should be used to service our country's debts. I think the review should leave our submarines alone - the entire frontline capacity of the RN, even.

Why? What bloody purpose do nuclear subs actually serve any more? Also, it isn't mental to wish to continue to correctly fund the public sector. WTF do we need with billion quid burning stationary nuclear subs when we can put that money into state hospitals or state schools.

Albatross wrote:

Warfare has shifted now, our theatres aren't open wars against standing armies and navies,

At the moment. Although UK forces did fight standing armies last decade, the decade before and the decade before THAT.

What, wait, where? Do you mean the massed infantry blocks of the Argentines? The Golden Horde of Iraq? WTF? Unless we want to start fights with serious contenders and have land battles, the current makeup of the UK armed forces would be better served with far more elite infantry units to insurge the insurgents and go into hills and caves and bring terror to terrorists.

Albatross wrote:

we are up against insurgents and dug in militias.

'We' aren't up against anyone MGS - 'we' are siting in the comfort of our homes, typing out opinions onto a wargaming site, whilst others do the fighting for us. Let's remember that. Not being a dick (well, not TRYING to be.. ), but I think it's worth mentioning. What I want is for our government to to make the correct decisions that will give the fighting men and women of our country the best chance of coming home to their loved ones without a flag draped over them. All politics aside, mate.

This reeks of patronisation. Rise above that please. Don't score emotional soundbites like that, it makes you smell of Jeremy Kyle...

Albatross wrote:

Our military model was gears up in the cold war against the soviet empire, it is not well suited to the current climate.

That's true. The UK Armed Forces need a strategic reshuffle, fair enough. But we can't sit here and say that our forces will be only fighting insurgencies for the next 20 years. Things change, rapidly, and when you least expect them. I'd like the UK to be prepared for most, if not all, eventualities. I think the procurement side of the MoD needs a root-and-branch makeover, sweeping reform. That could potentially produce big savings. But yeah, we probably don't need hundreds of tanks.

So, ultimately, you agreed with me, cool, thanks for that, shame about taking the long road about it but as long as you got there, that's cool. Because things did change rapidly, that's why the current makeup is out of sync with what's being asked of it.

My understanding is that Trident will be funded out of existing MOD funds. I'd rather that was later rather than sooner, my understanding is that the proposed Afghanistan pull out should happen before Trident's renewal becomes vital.

Good to see some belt tightening, could you float a line to Washington DC and tell them to follow suit?

You guys don't want the nukes, trust us, once you have them they cost a tonne and are impossible to let go of.

'Sides, we've got enough to destroy the surface of the earth over here, you guys don't need more. It's not like theres a strategic advantage in it.

Its highly unlikely that the Royal Navy would actually scrap a significant number of ships or submarines. They would be mothballed in order to minimize costs, and preserve assets for future engagements.

You can only prepare for wars that have been fought.

This said it is obvious that if you are going to invade a country, take away its capacity to defend itself and make war AND change the direction it takes in the future you need to bring massive military force to bear.

I think that overwhelming your opponent is pretty much standard military thinking.

Less for less is a political argument which suits current western cultural thinking.

We don't want to fight wars and hate seeing body bags, but the bags are going to keep coming back with the piecemeal way in which military planning goes ahead.

Less bureacracy, more man power and the political will not get involved in wars where there is no ultimate objective.

Mr. Burning wrote:
We don't want to fight wars and hate seeing body bags, but the bags are going to keep coming back with the piecemeal way in which military planning goes ahead.

Are you supposing that body bags will stop coming back if the military exercise greater force? I mean, I suppose that's true in the abstract, but the coalition casualty counts in Iraq and Afghanistan are incredibly low given the length of those conflicts. Moreover, in both cases, the established military arm of the state was overrun in good order.

What we're seeing now is the natural consequence of occupying large tracts of land filled with potential hostiles. You suggested that Britain should avoid such conflicts, and I agree. But I'm forced to wonder why you want more men in the military when the only real use for large amounts of manpower is occupation. I mean, it isn't as if England is going to be under threat of invasion any time soon.

Raise your hand if when dogma said "coalition forces", you immediately thought of Nick and Dave.

MeanGreenStompa wrote: What, wait, where? Do you mean the massed infantry blocks of the Argentines? The Golden Horde of Iraq? WTF? Unless we want to start fights with serious contenders and have land battles, the current makeup of the UK armed forces would be better served with far more elite infantry units to insurge the insurgents and go into hills and caves and bring terror to terrorists.

You have never actually read much about the Falklands war then mate eh?

Massed infantry blocks of Argentines? It was hard fighting in the Falklands war, after disembarking from ships at San Carlos on East Falkland, Royal Marines yomped with all of their equipment across the islands covering 56 miles in three days with absolutely everything on their backs, something nobody expected or even thought possible across the terrain, goose green? Mount Harriet? Two sisters? It was hard fighting that bugger, a short but bloody and brutal war for the lads involved.

What the hell was "massed infantry blocks" about argies dug in, in fortified positions, getting assaulted uphill in their bunkers by sweating pissed off commandos?

I also read that if they had taken 5 more days to dig in we would never have won that war, and if it wasnt for the true grit and the training of the lads on the ground i have no doubt at all that we would have lost it.

Anyway, all that aside, i think cuts are needed, they have gone across the board, why not the military?

Having recently left though and now working for local government, i can see what the real problem is. Greed and incompetence.

The police, fire department and every single aspect of government seems to me to be an absolute shambles, nobody wants to do their job properly and everything is top heavy. The "Parks and Open spaces" department for York City has 12 staff and 7 managers, the waste services department is about 60/30 and the NHS is as bad, im pleased with the way Mr Cameron has been operating since taking over and i honestly believe he really does need to take a hatchet to the public sector across the board more aggressively than he seems to be. This country has been left in a fething shambles by the desperate gambler that was squatting in Downing Street up until recently.

Now, what to cut? There is a question. I reckon we could cut the Navy Army and Air Force by 20% personally, i did it for ten years and there was just too many loafing bastards who didnt seem to actually do a job, but unlike many of the internet intellectualls that seem to think they know all the answers to the worlds problems on dakka, ill merely use the old soldier addage and think that "people with fatter pay slips than me can make those decisions"

I hope they make the right ones.

Your taking the quote out of context M, I said I wanted the money from obsolete nuclear subs redistributed, especially into enhancing the elite units of infantry.

having worked in both the NHS and Social Services, I entirely concur with you over the number of middle management who are just thumb twiddling. I don't say cut, I say redistribute. Remove # managers, replace with # social workers and nurses.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Albatross wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Cease trident, cut the subs by 1/3 and reinvest half into the special armed services, half into the NHS.

Seriously though, plough MORE money into the public sector?!? That is mental. If our government DID decide not to renew Trident (cutting isn't even an option, it's not even on the table), then the money saved should be used to service our country's debts. I think the review should leave our submarines alone - the entire frontline capacity of the RN, even.

Why? What bloody purpose do nuclear subs actually serve any more? Also, it isn't mental to wish to continue to correctly fund the public sector. WTF do we need with billion quid burning stationary nuclear subs when we can put that money into state hospitals or state schools.

Correctly funding the public sector? I was going to try and be nice this time around, but the arrogance of that is astounding. Your answer, like most socialists, is to simply shovel more money into an already bloated system, a system which has already wasted billions over the last few years. Now, the MoD has wasted billions too - it's inefficient, no-one doubts that. But the answer is to streamline it, not rob Peter to pay Paul. We have huge debts a defecit about the size of Greece's, and you want to pump more money into the NHS black hole? This isn't the government's money we're talking about, this is the tax-payers, and I thank my lucky stars that narrow-minded idealogues like you aren't in charge of it.

Albatross wrote:

Warfare has shifted now, our theatres aren't open wars against standing armies and navies,

At the moment. Although UK forces did fight standing armies last decade, the decade before and the decade before THAT.

What, wait, where? Do you mean the massed infantry blocks of the Argentines? The Golden Horde of Iraq? WTF?

What's your fething problem, man? Are you incapable of being civil? Do you deny that UK forces fought conventional armies in the past few decades? The Argentines had a Navy, Air Force and army, there were tank battles in the First Gulf War, conventional land forces in the second (although they surrendered pretty sharpish). Quit being a smart-arse.

Unless we want to start fights with serious contenders and have land battles, the current makeup of the UK armed forces would be better served with far more elite infantry units to insurge the insurgents and go into hills and caves and bring terror to terrorists.

Elite infantry units such as...? The Royal Marines? There are only around 6000 of them and they each cost a few million to train and equip, IIRC. UK Special Forces cost even more. To implement your plan we would need to increase numbers of marines and SF by a factor of at least 5. And that's not the way to win the war in Afghanistan, in my opinion.

Albatross wrote:

we are up against insurgents and dug in militias.

'We' aren't up against anyone MGS - 'we' are siting in the comfort of our homes, typing out opinions onto a wargaming site, whilst others do the fighting for us. Let's remember that. Not being a dick (well, not TRYING to be.. ), but I think it's worth mentioning. What I want is for our government to to make the correct decisions that will give the fighting men and women of our country the best chance of coming home to their loved ones without a flag draped over them. All politics aside, mate.

This reeks of patronisation. Rise above that please. Don't score emotional soundbites like that, it makes you smell of Jeremy Kyle...

Stay classy, MGS.

Albatross wrote:

Our military model was gears up in the cold war against the soviet empire, it is not well suited to the current climate.

That's true. The UK Armed Forces need a strategic reshuffle, fair enough. But we can't sit here and say that our forces will be only fighting insurgencies for the next 20 years. Things change, rapidly, and when you least expect them. I'd like the UK to be prepared for most, if not all, eventualities. I think the procurement side of the MoD needs a root-and-branch makeover, sweeping reform. That could potentially produce big savings. But yeah, we probably don't need hundreds of tanks.

So, ultimately, you agreed with me, cool, thanks for that, shame about taking the long road about it but as long as you got there, that's cool. Because things did change rapidly, that's why the current makeup is out of sync with what's being asked of it.

So your answer is to change to better reflect the CURRENT climate? How remarkably short-sighted.
And I'm not agreeing with you - the stuff about the NHS was the sort of nonsense I would expect from a pie-in-the-sky socialist mouthpiece. I was going to say 'I think you're better than that', but actually, I don't think you are.

Albatross wrote:
Correctly funding the public sector? I was going to try and be nice this time around, but the arrogance of that is astounding.

...and I thank my lucky stars that narrow-minded idealogues like you aren't in charge of it.

What's your fething problem, man? Are you incapable of being civil? Quit being a smart-arse.

Stay classy, MGS.

...the sort of nonsense I would expect from a pie-in-the-sky socialist mouthpiece.

...I was going to say 'I think you're better than that', but actually, I don't think you are.

Welcome to ignore.

The UK has to ask and answer some core questions.

What do we want to do in the world?
What forces do we need to do it?
How do we get them in for a price we can afford?

Do we want to project force globally, or is it OK to defend ourselves in Europe?

If we are going to project force, what force do we need to project? Will we fight anyone with a significant modern conventional army -- let's say the Koreans or Argentinians?

If we do, then we not only need plenty of tanks and heavy artillery, we also need a way of carrying those tanks, their crews and support over to Korea or Argentina, then landing them safely. That means we need a substantial amphibious capability backed up by a navy capable of defending it thousands of miles from home, accompanied by the auxiliary units to supply that navy. We'll also need plenty of nuclear subs to defend the task force from the defending conventional coastal subs.

You see how it all starts to multiply?

OTOH maybe we just want to carry out counter-insurgency operations as we have done in Afghanistan, Iraq and Sierra Leone. The forces needed for that are infantry supported by light armoured vehicles and helicopters. No tanks or heavy artillery are required. The equipment needed can be airmobile if we have enough large transport aircraft. We don't need serious air supremacy fighter cover since the enemies we will be fighting don't have air forces.

Let's say we abandon global adventures and stick to defending ourselves in Europe. Who are our enemies here?

Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's say we abandon global adventures and stick to defending ourselves in Europe. Who are our enemies here?

The liches of Lichtenstein... We would need more witch hunters, exorcists and flame based weaponry.

Silver bullets!

mattyrm wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote: What, wait, where? Do you mean the massed infantry blocks of the Argentines? The Golden Horde of Iraq? WTF? Unless we want to start fights with serious contenders and have land battles, the current makeup of the UK armed forces would be better served with far more elite infantry units to insurge the insurgents and go into hills and caves and bring terror to terrorists.

You have never actually read much about the Falklands war then mate eh?

Massed infantry blocks of Argentines? It was hard fighting in the Falklands war, after disembarking from ships at San Carlos on East Falkland, Royal Marines yomped with all of their equipment across the islands covering 56 miles in three days with absolutely everything on their backs, something nobody expected or even thought possible across the terrain, goose green? Mount Harriet? Two sisters? It was hard fighting that bugger, a short but bloody and brutal war for the lads involved.

What the hell was "massed infantry blocks" about argies dug in, in fortified positions, getting assaulted uphill in their bunkers by sweating pissed off commandos?

I also read that if they had taken 5 more days to dig in we would never have won that war, and if it wasnt for the true grit and the training of the lads on the ground i have no doubt at all that we would have lost it.

Don't forget the lads had a little help from "Bravo November, bless 'em!



And remember folks, there is indeed a direct correlation between a Defence White Paper and the amount of blood, sweat, and tears the grunts on the ground have to spill to get the job done...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Albatross wrote:
Correctly funding the public sector? I was going to try and be nice this time around, but the arrogance of that is astounding.

...and I thank my lucky stars that narrow-minded idealogues like you aren't in charge of it.

What's your fething problem, man? Are you incapable of being civil? Quit being a smart-arse.

Stay classy, MGS.

...the sort of nonsense I would expect from a pie-in-the-sky socialist mouthpiece.

...I was going to say 'I think you're better than that', but actually, I don't think you are.

Welcome to ignore.

'...And throughout the kingdom there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.'



I take the point of the 'defending Europe' argument, but would offer the counterpoint: 'Why Britain?' Does the UK not do enough on the world stage already in terms of military intervention, relative to it's size? Our country has commited a relatively large number of troops to Afghanistan so that our european 'friends' don't have to. It should be left to countries like Belgium, France, Germany and Italy to put their money where there mouths are. Britain does enough.

Correctly funding the public sector? I was going to try and be nice this time around, but the arrogance of that is astounding. Your answer, like most socialists, is to simply shovel more money into an already bloated system, a system which has already wasted billions over the last few years. Now, the MoD has wasted billions too - it's inefficient, no-one doubts that. But the answer is to streamline it, not rob Peter to pay Paul. We have huge debts a defecit about the size of Greece's, and you want to pump more money into the NHS black hole? This isn't the government's money we're talking about, this is the tax-payers, and I thank my lucky stars that narrow-minded idealogues like you aren't in charge of it.

So the public sector is bloated (yet needs more money) while the nuclear sub sector is is not? The hell are you talking about?

What's your fething problem, man? Are you incapable of being civil? Do you deny that UK forces fought conventional armies in the past few decades? The Argentines had a Navy, Air Force and army, there were tank battles in the First Gulf War, conventional land forces in the second (although they surrendered pretty sharpish). Quit being a smart-arse.

The argentine military was a joke and it still is. It couldn't hold a candle to what Sadaam had and his army fell in three days. Englands military can not, and will not stand up to largescale modern militaries such as chinas or the US and no one else will ever go to war with you for the simple fact that it's impossible due to a lack of national force projection in virtually all other states (argentina being a special case since you own an island thats basically touching them and is stupidly far away from you). Don't bring up argentina like it was some sort of brilliant triumph, you beat up a whiny child of a country with a fraction of your military power after it surprised one of your colonial island territories and didn't think you would respond in full force.

Elite infantry units such as...? The Royal Marines? There are only around 6000 of them and they each cost a few million to train and equip, IIRC. UK Special Forces cost even more. To implement your plan we would need to increase numbers of marines and SF by a factor of at least 5. And that's not the way to win the war in Afghanistan, in my opinion.

Most experts believe that more bodies on the ground with a stronger emphasis on reconstruction and civilian protection is the way to win in afghanistan.





The falklands...

Beating the Argentinians wasn't hard. Getting the forces there to do it was rather difficult.