British Miltary Cuts

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2004-07-22 09:29am

So, as some of you may aware, the Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has now outlined his plans for Cuts to the British miltary

The main reason people are complaing here, is the loss of the RAF bases, with the squadrens attached to them, providing quite a considreble income for the rural areas where they are located, when they are finally shut down, the will be a tremendous loss for thise rural economies

BBC article

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2004-07-22 09:49am

why are they cutting the military with the current situation... it seems.... stupid

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2004-07-22 09:53am

There was a right uproar down here, because everyone was worried that Britannia Royal Navel College was going to close, which would have more or less destroyed the town of Dartmouth.

I agree with the situation in both Iraw and Afganistan, that it is quite rediculous for these cuts to come within the next few years, perhaps they forgot about this rather large problem called Iraq

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-07-22 09:55am

Zac Naloen wrote:why are they cutting the military with the current situation... it seems.... stupid

Welcome to the BRILLIANCE of the British Government, which when faced
with a way to FUCK THE MILITARY OVER, ALWAYS SEEMS TO FIND A WAY
TO DO IT 2X WORSE!

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2004-07-22 10:02am

if you think the ways theve butchered the milatrys is bad, have a look at what they have done to the NHS and transport services

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-07-22 10:18am

These are cuts in certain specific areas of the military to free up resources to modernise our forces

BBC wrote:Overall, the budget for armed forces is to rise by £3.7bn, from £29.7bn this year to £33.4bn by 2007-8.

This is of course a rather perverse time to announce such things but to headline a story “British Military Cuts” is a little misleading it’s more “British Military realocation of resources”

antitrek wrote:if you think the ways theve butchered the milatrys is bad, have a look at what they have done to the NHS and transport services

I’m no Blairite (in fact I’m an active member of an opposition party) but I think you are being unfair on them here. The NHS is is much better shape than it was in 1997 and all the extra cash Brown has poured into it 2 decades of Tory under investment has really improved things, check the facts waiting times are down, recruitment of medical staff is up, the new “choice” based plans are well of the mark though.

As for transport pfi for the tube was a mistake and the railways are a mess but that was a hopelessly tangled mess bequeathed to them by the Tories ideologically driven privatisation. Sure Labour have made mistakes but most of the blame lies with the Tories here.

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2004-07-22 10:23am

the NHs thing was more reffering to the general British Govermant over the years

as for the relocarion of resources: 20 000 jobs losses sounds more like cuts more than anything, as for the modernisation, they have been planning this for the last two years, they have yet to actully state anything apart from a Anglo - American Digital system for our warships.

Ots just as well this over a period of six or more years.. otherwise it would be beyond belief...

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-07-22 10:38am

antitrek wrote:the NHs thing was more reffering to the general British Govermant over the years

as for the relocarion of resources: 20 000 jobs losses sounds more like cuts more than anything, as for the modernisation, they have been planning this for the last two years, they have yet to actully state anything apart from a Anglo - American Digital system for our warships.

Ots just as well this over a period of six or more years.. otherwise it would be beyond belief...

I agree that this is a bizarre time to announce job losses in the armed forces and I really wouldn’t know if these proposed changes make sense I’m just saying that overall there are no “cuts” as military spending in actually increasing as the following article demonstrates.

BBC wrote:Defence review at-a-glance
Here are the main points of Geoff Hoon's defence review announced in the House of Commons on Wednesday.

# Royal Navy to lose 12 ships and vessels, including HMS Cardiff, Newcastle and Glasgow, which will go by the end of 2005.

Three Type 23 frigates, HMS Norfolk, Marlborough and Grafton, to go by March 2006.

Three Northern Ireland patrol vessels, HMS Brecon, Dulverton and Cottesmore, will be paid off by April 2007.

# The Army is to lose four infantry battalions bringing the total down to 36, of which one battalion will go from Scotland and three from England.

The number of personnel currently at 108,500 will drop to 102,000 - defence chiefs said that in real terms 1,500 would be lost.

# The RAF is losing four aircraft squadrons and RAF Coltishall in Norfolk will close by December 2006. More may close afterwards.

# The RAF will shed 7,500 jobs by 2008, the Navy 1,500 and the Army about 1,000 jobs, with a further 10,000 civilian posts also lost.

# The Navy will gain two new large aircraft carriers.

# Overall, the budget for armed forces is to rise by £3.7bn, from £29.7bn this year to £33.4bn by 2007-8.

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2004-07-22 10:46am

I reckon its because they want to develop better food for those Hungary Brits in the line of fire..

I am quite Surpised that the Main man in charge of the Miltary as a whole agreed to this, you wold think he would protest about it

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-07-22 02:19pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Zac Naloen wrote:why are they cutting the military with the current situation... it seems.... stupid
Welcome to the BRILLIANCE of the British Government, which when faced
with a way to FUCK THE MILITARY OVER, ALWAYS SEEMS TO FIND A WAY
TO DO IT 2X WORSE!

Any other day, I'd agree with you (bitter taste after Project White Paper and all), but these cuts seem justified somewhat. Other than finally losing all our lovely Jags (thought they'd gone years ago!) and a few more army personnell, it's more of a trimming the old stuff away to make way for the new stuff.

Besides, as one article pointed out, unlike the Cold War where we knew Commies and their huge military of EVIL would invade Europe again, this current climate calls for rapid and more high-tech forces, not lumbering armies of massive size. So I guess this helps us in the "War on Terror". But the main doubts come from our overstretching to aid the US (which is also under heavy strain) and the fact that we may not be able to fight a proper war with such a specialised force if one crops up.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-07-22 06:59pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Besides, as one article pointed out, unlike the Cold War where we knew Commies and their huge military of EVIL would invade Europe again, this current climate calls for rapid and more high-tech forces, not lumbering armies of massive size. So I guess this helps us in the "War on Terror".

History has consistently shown that fighting terrorist's requires a sustained effort for years. Just look at Afghanistan right now. You can't sustain a deployment if you only have enough men for a single rotation. Cutting infantry of all things is just retarded.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-07-23 02:27am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Besides, as one article pointed out, unlike the Cold War where we knew Commies and their huge military of EVIL would invade Europe again, this current climate calls for rapid and more high-tech forces, not lumbering armies of massive size. So I guess this helps us in the "War on Terror".
History has consistently shown that fighting terrorist's requires a sustained effort for years. Just look at Afghanistan right now. You can't sustain a deployment if you only have enough men for a single rotation. Cutting infantry of all things is just retarded.

Welcome to the Westminster system of government

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-07-23 06:44am

Stuart Mackey wrote:Welcome to the Westminster system of government

I wouldnt call that a flaw in the Westminster system of government, since Australia's implementation hasnt done these types of cutbacks to its military in rescent years.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-07-23 07:16am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Besides, as one article pointed out, unlike the Cold War where we knew Commies and their huge military of EVIL would invade Europe again, this current climate calls for rapid and more high-tech forces, not lumbering armies of massive size. So I guess this helps us in the "War on Terror".
History has consistently shown that fighting terrorist's requires a sustained effort for years. Just look at Afghanistan right now. You can't sustain a deployment if you only have enough men for a single rotation. Cutting infantry of all things is just retarded.

That's why I express concern at the cutting in staff numbers. It's one thing to retire ageing warships and planes or tanks, but quite another to cut the numbers of actual soldiers and technicians etc. on the ground. One other critique was that given the huge peacekeeping duties the TA does around the globe, it's obvious that we need more men, not less. Flexible and high-tech is good, though it shouldn't mean a compromise in manpower.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-07-23 07:21am

ggs wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:Welcome to the Westminster system of government
I wouldnt call that a flaw in the Westminster system of government, since Australia's implementation hasnt done these types of cutbacks to its military in rescent years.

But then Aussie does not have some of the same political imperitives in action...

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-07-23 09:39pm

Did I read the 'two large carriers' part right? Did Wales turn to gold while I wasn't looking?

Are we talking Nimitz-large, or large as in 'not shit thru-deck cruiser'?

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2004-07-23 10:04pm

The Defence Secretary's Statement. After a bit of looking I managed to find this. It's what was actually said by the guy, and contains much more information than the BBC summary.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-07-23 10:14pm

Stark wrote:Did I read the 'two large carriers' part right? Did Wales turn to gold while I wasn't looking?

Are we talking Nimitz-large, or large as in 'not shit thru-deck cruiser'?

Medium sized carriers..in the 30- 40 000 tonnes bracket..they should be getting three but they probably cannot afford three. 50 odd aircraft.

link to MOD site

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-07-24 04:03am

Stuart Mackey wrote: Medium sized carriers..in the 30- 40 000 tonnes bracket..they should be getting three but they probably cannot afford three. 50 odd aircraft.

link to MOD site

Well if the UK wanted it could easily afford four 60,000-ton carriers, and ample escorts for them and all the patrol stations the RN used to maintain. As it is every time the British defence budget gets cut one or two RN stations tend to disappear, and that tends to result in large swatches of British territory overseas being without any form of military presence at all. That isn't the best idea when your main enemy is terrorists who would think nothing of landing on some remote island like South Georgia and killing everyone to be found. Then you just hop back on your one amoung a thousand scow and sail way.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2004-07-24 07:52am

Sea Skimmer wrote: Well if the UK wanted it could easily afford four 60,000-ton carriers, and ample escorts for them and all the patrol stations the RN used to maintain.

Oh yes, we probably could afford them. Now, two questions. 1) What would you like us to cut in order to pay for them? 2) Why the heck would we need 4 carriers of that size anyway?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-07-24 08:38am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: Medium sized carriers..in the 30- 40 000 tonnes bracket..they should be getting three but they probably cannot afford three. 50 odd aircraft.

link to MOD site
Well if the UK wanted it could easily afford four 60,000-ton carriers, and ample escorts for them and all the patrol stations the RN used to maintain. snip.

As Prozac mentions..they could afford them..but who foots the bill? But most importantly what you are forgetting is politics and perception. To just up and say 'they could easily afford such and such' is rather naive.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-24 12:09pm

I think he's pointing out (quite rightly) that the UK's assraping it's own military with the "can't afford it" line when it's a matter of just matter of actually being willing to spend the money on it.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-07-24 12:19pm

Stormbringer wrote:I think he's pointing out (quite rightly) that the UK's assraping it's own military with the "can't afford it" line when it's a matter of just matter of actually being willing to spend the money on it.

Which would be why the government increased the military budget I assume.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-24 12:43pm

TheDarkling wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:I think he's pointing out (quite rightly) that the UK's assraping it's own military with the "can't afford it" line when it's a matter of just matter of actually being willing to spend the money on it.
Which would be why the government increased the military budget I assume.

Well, they have sort of. It seems that you're increasing the budget but cutting the forces and instead spending it on gee whizardy.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2004-07-24 12:46pm

Stormbringer wrote:I think he's pointing out (quite rightly) that the UK's assraping it's own military with the "can't afford it" line when it's a matter of just matter of actually being willing to spend the money on it.

Yes, but we can't afford to buy a fleet of super carriers and hire more doctors and nurses, build new roads and trainlines, hire more teachers, get more people into university, etc. etc.

Like I said, we could afford them, but it would mean cuts elsewhere which would be unnaceptable to too many people. And we really don't need them at the moment.