Times: "Carriers v Tanks: RN joins battle for resources"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by soleil, Feb 2, 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. jockpopeye

    jockpopeye Badgeman Book Reviewer

    As one senior Navy source said: “The impression we’re getting is that if the Army is prepared to give up a lot of its tanks [which General Richards hinted at in a speech last year] then we should sacrifice something as well.â€

    The army should give up most of its tanks regardless, they are a most unflexible and outmoded element of defence. The source should also have added that the RN's new ships are more efficient in terms of manpower required and this (presumably) generates a long term saving in terms of both manpower costs and the cost of supporting them at sea.

    Additionally if the Army wants to bang the Afghan drum then surely what they need is a cut in their own manpower and a re-focusing on smaller numbers of more highly trained light infantry.

    It seems obvious to me that our strategic future is going to be expeditionary warfare which in almost every case will have to be supported, if not launched from the sea.
     

Share This Page