Britain's armed forces could be reduced to a "tinpot gendarmerie" because of a lack of investment, the former head of the Royal Navy has warned.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6207267.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6207267.stm
Navy Net - Royal Navy Community
Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!
Admiral West: Armed forces face "tinpot future"
- Thread starterdunkers
- Start date
LP_Blower
GCM
Re: Admiral West: Armed forces face "tinpot future"
Oh dear. Here we go again.
Another senior military figure speaks out. But not until he has retired.
I'm beginning to get a little fed up with senior officers only saying what's on their mind when they no longer have anything to lose. I would take their comments more seriously if they were willing to stand their ground while doing the job and showed a little more backbone and were less inclined to keep their heads down while some shyster politician spins the message.
General Sir Mike Jackson in an interview the other week stated quite openly that what he advised in private and what he stated in public could be different. He didn't seem to think there was a problem with that.
I would suggest that if a senior officer is being consistently ignored in private, as seems to be happening, then he should perhaps think of saying so in public. It's not the politicians alone who are supposed to represent the public interest.
That said, I'm surprised Sir Alan West appears to only now (apparently) realise that his carriers are under threat. To get them would require a massive amount of investment; not just with the purchase price, but also the continuous running costs and manpower required. Two things consecutive governments have refused to pay for.
Oh dear. Here we go again.
Another senior military figure speaks out. But not until he has retired.
I'm beginning to get a little fed up with senior officers only saying what's on their mind when they no longer have anything to lose. I would take their comments more seriously if they were willing to stand their ground while doing the job and showed a little more backbone and were less inclined to keep their heads down while some shyster politician spins the message.
General Sir Mike Jackson in an interview the other week stated quite openly that what he advised in private and what he stated in public could be different. He didn't seem to think there was a problem with that.
I would suggest that if a senior officer is being consistently ignored in private, as seems to be happening, then he should perhaps think of saying so in public. It's not the politicians alone who are supposed to represent the public interest.
That said, I'm surprised Sir Alan West appears to only now (apparently) realise that his carriers are under threat. To get them would require a massive amount of investment; not just with the purchase price, but also the continuous running costs and manpower required. Two things consecutive governments have refused to pay for.
Re: Admiral West: Armed forces face "tinpot future"
I used to moan about Senior Officers gobbing off after retirement but I note General Jackson's recent comments (mentioned in the previous post) and mellowed.
Going public while in office is a matter for the individual Officer. Some of them may feel that they have a duty not to have an undignified public slanging match with the Ministry/Fuehrer Bunker.
I don't believe their pensions would be at risk if they did. A disimissal may mean up to two years service chopped off but after 35 years in, who'd notice?
Anyway, Admiral West remains on the Active List (without an appointment) as does Admiral Boyce and a few others.
I used to moan about Senior Officers gobbing off after retirement but I note General Jackson's recent comments (mentioned in the previous post) and mellowed.
Going public while in office is a matter for the individual Officer. Some of them may feel that they have a duty not to have an undignified public slanging match with the Ministry/Fuehrer Bunker.
I don't believe their pensions would be at risk if they did. A disimissal may mean up to two years service chopped off but after 35 years in, who'd notice?
Anyway, Admiral West remains on the Active List (without an appointment) as does Admiral Boyce and a few others.
D
Deleted 493
Guest
Re: Admiral West: Armed forces face "tinpot future"
How good would it be for morale if we saw the Chiefs of Staff show their mettle once in a while and 'go public'? For me it would turn heads, and certainly allow the population to judge the intentions of the government on merit. Sure, it's tantamount to mutiny, but big deal. Do we want the armed forces of the future shaped by PR spinners, pencil necks, lawyers and financiers or do we want it unkept and maintained by people in the know? All very well and good Jackson, Boyce and West carping on in their retirement whilst taking board-member jobs at lucrative arms companies, but what of the active service people? Dannat showed a blancmange vertibrae when challenged on his view on Iraq - he knows, Jackson knew, Boyce especially knew and we all know it is a losing battle out there and one which will only lead to more deaths and more humiliation before the skulking withdrawal, something we as Brits are not quite used to. And before anyone starts about 'how dare you, we must finish the job' I challenge anyone to freewheel thier imaginations and come up with anything else credible than either us and the Yanks actively going cap in hand to the 'Axis of Evil' ((c) GW Bush, not-so-long ago) or the Yanks turning the desert into a sea of glass. Finishing the job is harder than starting it, and Christ knows how hard they worked trying to concoct a web of lies and deception about WMD. We have whacked a mighty hornet's nest in the middle east. Be nice to see our trusted bosses operating with command, leadership and management over those who would see us beaten in Whitehall and beaten in theatre/
Levers
Seadog said:
How good would it be for morale if we saw the Chiefs of Staff show their mettle once in a while and 'go public'? For me it would turn heads, and certainly allow the population to judge the intentions of the government on merit. Sure, it's tantamount to mutiny, but big deal. Do we want the armed forces of the future shaped by PR spinners, pencil necks, lawyers and financiers or do we want it unkept and maintained by people in the know? All very well and good Jackson, Boyce and West carping on in their retirement whilst taking board-member jobs at lucrative arms companies, but what of the active service people? Dannat showed a blancmange vertibrae when challenged on his view on Iraq - he knows, Jackson knew, Boyce especially knew and we all know it is a losing battle out there and one which will only lead to more deaths and more humiliation before the skulking withdrawal, something we as Brits are not quite used to. And before anyone starts about 'how dare you, we must finish the job' I challenge anyone to freewheel thier imaginations and come up with anything else credible than either us and the Yanks actively going cap in hand to the 'Axis of Evil' ((c) GW Bush, not-so-long ago) or the Yanks turning the desert into a sea of glass. Finishing the job is harder than starting it, and Christ knows how hard they worked trying to concoct a web of lies and deception about WMD. We have whacked a mighty hornet's nest in the middle east. Be nice to see our trusted bosses operating with command, leadership and management over those who would see us beaten in Whitehall and beaten in theatre/
Levers
chockhead819
War Hero
Re: Admiral West: Armed forces face "tinpot future"
lets not forget this is the same Admiral West who said we could retake the Falklands again we the ships we have a couple of weeks ago!
lets not forget this is the same Admiral West who said we could retake the Falklands again we the ships we have a couple of weeks ago!
Re: Admiral West: Armed forces face "tinpot future"
Where did you read or hear Admiral West's 'Falklands' claim chockhead? It seems to have passed me and RR right by (of course it could be lurking on RR somewhere). Would have made a hot topic. Might still make a hot topic if it can be verified.
Where did you read or hear Admiral West's 'Falklands' claim chockhead? It seems to have passed me and RR right by (of course it could be lurking on RR somewhere). Would have made a hot topic. Might still make a hot topic if it can be verified.
chockhead819
War Hero
Re: Admiral West: Armed forces face "tinpot future"
tonrus could well be right, but i'm sure it was him as they mention his service in the Falklands.
tonrus could well be right, but i'm sure it was him as they mention his service in the Falklands.
D
Deleted 493
Guest
Re: Admiral West: Armed forces face "tinpot future"
That was the rainy morning Illustrious called into London. Johnny Band was avoiding being cornered on what Dannat had said earlier, chicaning his way around the questioning with a load of '... I think what it is important to remember is ..." bullshit answers, which skewed the conversation away from the big question which was:
"Given the fact that we're not doing too well in the sandpit, and the government seem more preocccupied with trivial domestic horsecrap than dead squaddies and your mate Dannat has as much as said they are selling us short, do you agree with the CGS, or what?"
Nice one Johnny. The ambivalent public might be fooled and switch off, but those currently in your charge are not.
Levers
ps. if our leaders believe we can retake the Falkland Islands if re-invaded, I would dearly love to flick through their working out. I'm far from a statisician, and certainly no defence analyst. But I possbily would be able to pick one or two holes in their illusions, given the complete destitution of support capability and wholesale desecration of any deployable task grouping without fear of massive shortfalls in sustainability in theatre. Some may say 'well, all the stops would be pulled out in that case' and indeed they were during Corporate, but we had three times the navy then, and indeed the commercial and RFA back up to maintain that. The Argentines currently blow big trumets about re-invasion, yet their people (although likeable, passionate sorts) have no stomach for the fight. That cannot be said for more capable nations.
tonrus said:
That was the rainy morning Illustrious called into London. Johnny Band was avoiding being cornered on what Dannat had said earlier, chicaning his way around the questioning with a load of '... I think what it is important to remember is ..." bullshit answers, which skewed the conversation away from the big question which was:
"Given the fact that we're not doing too well in the sandpit, and the government seem more preocccupied with trivial domestic horsecrap than dead squaddies and your mate Dannat has as much as said they are selling us short, do you agree with the CGS, or what?"
Nice one Johnny. The ambivalent public might be fooled and switch off, but those currently in your charge are not.
Levers
ps. if our leaders believe we can retake the Falkland Islands if re-invaded, I would dearly love to flick through their working out. I'm far from a statisician, and certainly no defence analyst. But I possbily would be able to pick one or two holes in their illusions, given the complete destitution of support capability and wholesale desecration of any deployable task grouping without fear of massive shortfalls in sustainability in theatre. Some may say 'well, all the stops would be pulled out in that case' and indeed they were during Corporate, but we had three times the navy then, and indeed the commercial and RFA back up to maintain that. The Argentines currently blow big trumets about re-invasion, yet their people (although likeable, passionate sorts) have no stomach for the fight. That cannot be said for more capable nations.
Re: Admiral West: Armed forces face "tinpot future"
I think that you are dead right Seadog. Say what you like about the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Heads of the Fighting Services (1SL, CGS and CAS) but, when in post, they are responsible for delivering operational capability in defence of the Nation or whatever expeditionary operations the Government decrees - they are not there to publicly argue against that policy - the armed forces are a servant of government, not its master - that's what defines democracy; to do otherwise exposes us to the same anarchy typified by Juntas and military coups. I applaud those senior officers who are prepared, to speak out after leaving those appointments and 'tell it like it is' - one hopes that successive civil servants will take note (but I wouldn't bet on it!)
Seadog said:
I think that you are dead right Seadog. Say what you like about the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Heads of the Fighting Services (1SL, CGS and CAS) but, when in post, they are responsible for delivering operational capability in defence of the Nation or whatever expeditionary operations the Government decrees - they are not there to publicly argue against that policy - the armed forces are a servant of government, not its master - that's what defines democracy; to do otherwise exposes us to the same anarchy typified by Juntas and military coups. I applaud those senior officers who are prepared, to speak out after leaving those appointments and 'tell it like it is' - one hopes that successive civil servants will take note (but I wouldn't bet on it!)
Re: Admiral West: Armed forces face "tinpot future"
The RFA is probably more capable than in 1982 and even more so when all LPD(A)s are in service plus Albion, Bulwark, Ocean; that'll get the booties ashore (though most of them are in Afghanistan). The RFA now have a PCRF (we had to use STUFT in 82). Argus and Diligence went south in their previous commercial lives, MoD liked them so much, they bought them (two less to requisition/charter). We have a six ship strategic lift capability (hardly anyone knows about though no secret) we didn't have in 82 when we used STUFT.
Commercial? The commercial shipping world has always supplied troop ships. Canberra has gone but P&O have other cruise ships (not liners). Cunard? QE2 is still around and maybe they'd throw inthe Queen Mary. Nice.
So that's logistics, trooping and landing taken care of. Escorts and aircover anyone?
While putting on your armchair admiral's rig, recall the Tugg cartoon at the time, Jack and his oppos sittiing around in anti flash over a map of the Falklands. Jack is holding court.
If I was the task force commander I'd out the booties in here, the paras in there and the pongos in here.
Matey replies; if you were the task force commander none of them would have come down here.
dunkers wrote
Not what instant sunshine is for, is it?
The RFA is probably more capable than in 1982 and even more so when all LPD(A)s are in service plus Albion, Bulwark, Ocean; that'll get the booties ashore (though most of them are in Afghanistan). The RFA now have a PCRF (we had to use STUFT in 82). Argus and Diligence went south in their previous commercial lives, MoD liked them so much, they bought them (two less to requisition/charter). We have a six ship strategic lift capability (hardly anyone knows about though no secret) we didn't have in 82 when we used STUFT.
Commercial? The commercial shipping world has always supplied troop ships. Canberra has gone but P&O have other cruise ships (not liners). Cunard? QE2 is still around and maybe they'd throw inthe Queen Mary. Nice.
So that's logistics, trooping and landing taken care of. Escorts and aircover anyone?
While putting on your armchair admiral's rig, recall the Tugg cartoon at the time, Jack and his oppos sittiing around in anti flash over a map of the Falklands. Jack is holding court.
If I was the task force commander I'd out the booties in here, the paras in there and the pongos in here.
Matey replies; if you were the task force commander none of them would have come down here.
dunkers wrote
Not what instant sunshine is for, is it?
D
Deleted 493
Guest
Re: Admiral West: Armed forces face "tinpot future"
Argus - way beyond it's useful life. Now in refit in Falmouth (remember what they did to Endurance?) Diligence? Been on her recently? I served on her as S Inspector. She was brand new then and that was twenty-odd years ago. She is going the way of the rest. I'd be interested to see how we'd defend that six ship capability. And I mean 'defend', not 'make do with defending'. Sticking layered defence around HVTs has always been a surefire winner in my eyes, and for the littoral campaigns we subscribe to these days, the threat of being attacked by enemy nation forces cannot be discounted.
Maybe? I'd like to think that we were capable, as a nation, of taking up from trade a sizeable amount of support ships from trade. Canadian Pacific, Townsend Thorsen, North Sea Ferries to name but a few were all contributary to our sustained success during and just after Corporate. It isn't just while the fighting is taking place you need this reinforcement (I don't need to tell you that, anyway) but the outer harbour in Stanley was stuffed full of stuft (to coin a phrase) for many months after the surrender.
Hmmm.
Very patronising to regard me as an Armchair Admiral. I suppose you are going to use the term 'you don't see the bigger picture' as well? Well, after twenty-eight years at all levels, the picture I see now is as High Definition as you can get. I may not work in amongst the rarified atmosphere at Leach Building, but out in the fleet, confidence is low, morale flatlining and our stable world of doing what we do for the flag undermined by shady individuals more bothered by cash than by their 'greatest armed forces in the world'. (c) Blair and Hoon productions - 2003.
Stand up and be counted.
Levers
Seadog said:
Argus - way beyond it's useful life. Now in refit in Falmouth (remember what they did to Endurance?) Diligence? Been on her recently? I served on her as S Inspector. She was brand new then and that was twenty-odd years ago. She is going the way of the rest. I'd be interested to see how we'd defend that six ship capability. And I mean 'defend', not 'make do with defending'. Sticking layered defence around HVTs has always been a surefire winner in my eyes, and for the littoral campaigns we subscribe to these days, the threat of being attacked by enemy nation forces cannot be discounted.
Maybe? I'd like to think that we were capable, as a nation, of taking up from trade a sizeable amount of support ships from trade. Canadian Pacific, Townsend Thorsen, North Sea Ferries to name but a few were all contributary to our sustained success during and just after Corporate. It isn't just while the fighting is taking place you need this reinforcement (I don't need to tell you that, anyway) but the outer harbour in Stanley was stuffed full of stuft (to coin a phrase) for many months after the surrender.
Hmmm.
Very patronising to regard me as an Armchair Admiral. I suppose you are going to use the term 'you don't see the bigger picture' as well? Well, after twenty-eight years at all levels, the picture I see now is as High Definition as you can get. I may not work in amongst the rarified atmosphere at Leach Building, but out in the fleet, confidence is low, morale flatlining and our stable world of doing what we do for the flag undermined by shady individuals more bothered by cash than by their 'greatest armed forces in the world'. (c) Blair and Hoon productions - 2003.
Stand up and be counted.
Levers
