Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Most Important Defence Asset? 

The Force I would save from budget cuts is...
The Royal Navy 55%  55%  [ 12 ]
The Royal Air Force 9%  9%  [ 2 ]
The British Army 14%  14%  [ 3 ]
None! Tax-cut please 14%  14%  [ 3 ]
Money for pie! 9%  9%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 22

Most Important Defence Asset? 
Author Message
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
finlay666 wrote:
My Gas.

Can clear a room of any threats in seconds :D

That's against the Geneva convention, surely :lol: .

Note : I didn't say we can do without air power, I said we can do without the RAF. We need planes and pilots but there's no obvious sense in having a separate service, with all the attendant duplication of effort and resources, just to fly them. We don't have a separate organisation to drive the tanks, they're just part of the army. Same should go for planes. The AAC could operate planes over land and the NAC could operate them over sea, with the AAC including all the long range transport (as I say, 99% of what it moves around is the army anyway).

If you want to bomb some terrorist out of his rathole, you don't need a whole extra set of officers and admin and facilities to do it. He won't care if the bloke dropping the bombs on him wears a blue uniform or a green one. Have the planes and the helicopters but give them to the people who use them, rather than having this whole separate edifice just to run them.

As to the navy having been cut back, it's actually true that the Navy now has more admirals than ships. Mind you, the army also has far more generals than it needs for example. The armed services are all far too 'top heavy'. Lewis Page recently wrote a piece about this in The Register, it's quite an interesting read if you can dig it up.

Jon


Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:36 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
The RAF do have nukes though but not as big as the navy's.
The RAF haven't had nukes for decades.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:46 am
Profile WWW
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
I think that the Navy has a slight edge in that is needed to extend the power of Britain. Though the RAF are necessary as first line of defence. No victory can be achieved without air superiority. The Army are needed to actually win any ground war.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:16 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:17 am
Posts: 5550
Location: Nottingham
Reply with quote
Army

_________________
Twitter
Blog
flickr


Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:31 am
Profile WWW
Occasionally has a life
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:18 pm
Posts: 289
Reply with quote
we need all of them, that's why they are all still there.
I have a close friend who is a chinook pilot. He's RAF and flies to and from ships and boats and also used to ferry army and Navy personnel around. (used to as he has long since been promoted to a higher job) ..
The different services have different specialities- you can't do all the jobs well by removing any of them.

As for the argument that we'll never use nukes so why have them .. surely the point is to have them so we never have to use them...

Also the RAF do have a ground fighting force, the RAF Regiment.

Didge

_________________
eurotech


Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:43 am
Profile
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
As to the navy having been cut back, it's actually true that the Navy now has more admirals than ships. Mind you, the army also has far more generals than it needs for example. The armed services are all far too 'top heavy'. Lewis Page recently wrote a piece about this in The Register, it's quite an interesting read if you can dig it up.

Jon


Private Eye has been running articles on that recently :)

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:11 am
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
didgeman wrote:
we need all of them, that's why they are all still there.

Agreed but if cut backs are to be made I would suggest Trident and use it for the new carriers and equipping the army.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:13 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:36 pm
Posts: 5157
Location: /dev/tty0
Reply with quote
Where's the option for "they all take up too much public money, cut them all equally"?


Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:20 am
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 6146
Location: Middle Earth
Reply with quote
forquare1 wrote:
Where's the option for "they all take up too much public money, cut them all equally"?


Option 4 I believe. ;)

_________________
Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!

><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>

If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.


Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:22 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:36 pm
Posts: 5157
Location: /dev/tty0
Reply with quote
belchingmatt wrote:
forquare1 wrote:
Where's the option for "they all take up too much public money, cut them all equally"?


Option 4 I believe. ;)


Ah yes, I read that one wrong! :oops:


Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:28 am
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
didgeman wrote:
Also the RAF do have a ground fighting force, the RAF Regiment.
Didge

Yes, but that regiment's main role is actually to guard air facilities, a job that could be done by any decent squaddie. There's no real justification for having it as a separate organisation from the rest of our ground forces. If you roll the land based forces of the RAF into the AAC, you can roll the RAF regiment into the general ground forces command structure. Even keep it as a separate unit if you like so they don't feel liek they've been dissolved (although we've been perfectly happy recently to dissolve other ground forces regiments with just as illustrious a past).

What it comes down to is this : there is no job that the RAF does that members of the NAC or AAC can't be easily converted to do (don't tell me a Typhoon pilot is by definition different from a Sea Harrier pilot, because they aren't). There are jobs in the Navy and Army that members of the RAF cannot easily be converted to do. Therefore, if you are looking to make cuts, the RAF is the obvious choice. Get rid of the RAF, cut 1/3 of your useless brass hats and desk pushers while keeping hold of your combat capability by spreading it between the other two. I'm not entirely convinced there's any practical downside.

Jon


Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:55 am
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:11 pm
Posts: 12143
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
Money.

Mark

_________________
okenobi wrote:
All I know so far is that Mark, Jimmy Olsen and Peter Parker use Nikon and everybody else seems to use Canon.
ShockWaffle wrote:
Well you obviously. You're a one man vortex of despair.


Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:57 am
Profile WWW
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
forquare1 wrote:
Where's the option for "they all take up too much public money, cut them all equally"?

I would support the idea of a freeze but since there is loads of waste particularly at MOD HQ then that is where they should start and next with procurement, which has been appalling.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:59 am
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
timark_uk wrote:
Money.

Mark

Like the Swiss nuclear deterrent?

Attack us and we burn your money.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:23 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:12 am
Posts: 7011
Location: Wiltshire
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
timark_uk wrote:
Money.

Mark

Like the Swiss nuclear deterrent?

Attack us and we burn your money.


No the Swiss do the attack us and we tell everybody your secrets ;)

_________________
<input type="pickmeup" name="coffee" value="espresso" />


Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:40 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.