T'graph: RAF Can Be Trimmed, But Cuts To Navy & Army Insane

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by soleil, Sep 14, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Re: T'graph: RAF Can Be Trimmed, But Cuts To Navy & Army Ins

    Well said, just hope the Mandarins in the corridors of power take heed. We only know what we don't know !
     
  2. Re: T'graph: RAF Can Be Trimmed, But Cuts To Navy & Army Ins

    Really? I don't see much urgency for heavy armour or artillery at the moment. Further weakening of either the Navy or the Air Force would be lunacy.

    That must look very attractive and "popular"; to those that don't understand it. If our fighting Services consisted of nothing but infantry and coastal patrol boats, it might be an option. It's an unfortunate fact of life, though, that highly technical Services need a very large number of non combatants shoreside to provide the equipment and support they need. We could save some by being freed from Government accounting rules and abandoning the great edifice of "performance management". That wouldn't save that much, though.
     
  3. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    I am reminded of a rhyme from a book of Kings and Queens I had as a child. Charles II:

    "... He did not worry overmuch
    When up the Medway sailed the Dutch .."

    Nevertheless Heffer is wrong to categorise the MoD CS as 'an army of penpushers'. He would do well to find out what the MoD CS actually does before making glib assumptions like that (does this number include the RFA?). There should be more to this debate than cheap soundbites, and, sadly, a cheap shot like that undermines confidence in everything else he writes, some of which is to the point.
     
  4. Re: T'graph: RAF Can Be Trimmed, But Cuts To Navy & Army Ins

    Those bits of Artillery and Armour may not all be deployed to Afghanistan but the people who man them are over there patrolling and supporting, much like the guys did in NI.

    Their kit is old and will soon need replacing much like a lot of the Fleet. You'd be surprised at just how little we have in the way of Operational Arty and Armour.
     
  5. Re: T'graph: RAF Can Be Trimmed, But Cuts To Navy & Army Ins

    The tankies and dropshorts do, indeed have boots in the 'Stan and a fine contribution they make. If when that aberation is ENDEX, though, a wind back on numbers would keep the infanteers within the manpower limits.

    I do realise that their noise generators are getting old and I have a good idea of how much it costs to maintain them. It's also not difficult to work out how much it will cost to replace them. I also realise that it would put UK PLC out of the armour and heavy arty design and manufacture game.
     
  6. Re: T'graph: RAF Can Be Trimmed, But Cuts To Navy & Army Ins

    Not while there's a thriving export market
     
  7. Re: T'graph: RAF Can Be Trimmed, But Cuts To Navy & Army Ins

    Not while there's a thriving export market[/quote]

    Where?
    No one wants to buy our good but expensive,kit when they can get something nearly as good cheaper from the US,Frace,Germany without all the hassle....and with the required"agents payment"
     

Share This Page