Asst_Ed said:
Interestingly, I was at the press conference yesterday and could see this was going to be the issue in the nationals.
The chap from the Torygraph kept banging on about helos (although it was the Independent chap who wrote most about it; the Telegraph led on RN personnel filling all the gaps). More helos would, of course, be great (as Buster Howes quite rightly said) ... but where are the personnel to fly them?
Look at the pinch-points here, for example http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-07-07c.214347.h
And let's not forget, helos are not a panacea. The Yanks had quite a few in Vietnam...
Very interesting figures showing how the FAA is hurting in particular. What price manning the CAGs of the CVF?
There's an error somewhere with these for the Army:
Trade/Liability/Shortfall Number/Shortfall Percentage
RE Explosive Ordnance Disposal Cpl-SSgt/115/95/17
I'm surprised that our 100,000-strong Regular Army (
link) is only meant to include 14,615 Infantrymen Pte-LCpl. These PBI (plus RMs of course) comprise the boots on the ground performing most of the bread & butter work in two war zones and several other places around the world. It's no wonder we are feeling the pinch and relying on the TA to make up numbers where they can.
Remembering that we actually only have around 13,000 regular Infantrymen Pte-LCpl, it certainly puts things into perspective when you consider that the US Marine Corps numbers about 190,000 (
link) overall while the US Regular Army numbers around 520,000. Add the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve and it makes a combined Army strength of well over 1,000,000 (
link).
