99 replies to this topic

[gingerjon]

I must have missed that bit.

No like-for-like replacement for Trident during the lifetime of this Parliament.

[Methven Hornet]

Without wanting to sound callous and insensitive, my first reaction to the RAF Kinloss closure was "what's gonna happen to Moray Eels RLFC?". Then I realised they are based at Lossiemouth (although that may yet be axed).

On the bright side Fife Lions in Rosyth may get a bit more years' security.

[PC]

No like-for-like replacement for Trident during the lifetime of this Parliament.

Hardly stopped though is it?

[gingerjon]

Hardly stopped though is it?

Just as well that's not what the email said then, really.

[PC]

Just as well that's not what the email said then, really.

No, it said Trident will not be renewed, when in actuality is it, and that there is a 25% cut in warheads. By my calculations that would mean a reduction of 12 warheads, not 8. The e-mail is spin, nothing else, and pretty poor spin at that.

[ckn]

No, it said Trident will not be renewed, when in actuality is it, and that there is a 25% cut in warheads. By my calculations that would mean a reduction of 12 warheads, not 8. The e-mail is spin, nothing else, and pretty poor spin at that.

For me, it stank of desperation. "See? We have achieved something!"

[Bedford Roughyed]

No, it said Trident will not be renewed, when in actuality is it, and that there is a 25% cut in warheads. By my calculations that would mean a reduction of 12 warheads, not 8. The e-mail is spin, nothing else, and pretty poor spin at that.

Total warheads cut from 160 to less than 120 = 25% cut

The government says £750m ($1.2bn) will be saved over four years on the Trident nuclear deterrent missile system by cutting the number of warheads on each boat from 48 to 40 and reducing the number of missile tubes from 12 to eight. The UK's nuclear warhead stockpile will be cut from 160 to less than 120. The final "main gate" spending decision on Trident will also be delayed until 2016 - after the next general election.

[bowes]

Without wanting to sound callous and insensitive, my first reaction to the RAF Kinloss closure was "what's gonna happen to Moray Eels RLFC?". Then I realised they are based at Lossiemouth (although that may yet be axed).

On the bright side Fife Lions in Rosyth may get a bit more years' security.

Looks like no chance of a resurrection of Kinloss Hunters though, but I guess they only played in 1998 so wasn't likely anyway

[bowes]

The longer people are in the armed forces, the more "institutionalised" they can become making it harder to function in civvy life. It is an issue the army knows about and some units are very good at de-programming those leaving, the problem is that it's often not consistent or effective and too many soldiers are punted out the door with nowhere to go. Then they get the local authorities who treat them as untouchables, often telling them they don't "qualify" for housing within an area because of no ties despite them either growing up in the area or having lived there on posting for years.

A friend of mine left the army and the council (Colchester) refused to consider him for a house because he was making himself "voluntarily homeless" despite him reaching his 22 years of service and the army giving him no choice to stay on in service.

An example of how "institutionalised" people can get: When I went to university after leaving the army, I became a student accommodation warden to help pay the bills; the premises manager (my boss) was an ex Sergeant Major and he simply could not take "no" for an answer, he understood he couldn't shout at the civvies so he often took himself out the back of the building and marched himself up and down for 10-15 minutes to "de-stress". He was one of those who could cope, many simply cannot.

Ex-servicemen make up a disproportionately high number of prisoners and homeless people for many reasons but there is far more that the armed forces can do to help them. Pity that once you take your uniform off the state couldn't care less.

I heard about one local authority than refused to house a serviceman on the grounds that he had been living in Afghanistan and thus wasn't local but at the same time housed an Afghan refugee. Coventry we've changed the ruled so returning servicemen are higher priority (as more controversially are released prisoners, though it does make a lot of sense in reducing crime).

There is a lot of anti-military feeling as can be seen by the fact that Labour let millions of people into the country including fundamentalist Muslims (including 'refugees' from Algeria forced out for wanting to overthrow the semi-secular government to make it more Islamic) and people who couldn't speak a word of English and yet couldn't find room for a much smaller number of Gurkhas who had fought in the British army, until public pressure forced them to.

[ckn]

An interesting, and blunt, assessment of the defence review. In short, the author says that Cameron ballsed it up completely.

[Bedford Roughyed]

An interesting, and blunt, assessment of the defence review. In short, the author says that Cameron ballsed it up completely.

The day I listen to Lewis Page is the day we should all give up.

[ckn]

The day I listen to Lewis Page is the day we should all give up.

I usually agree but he does have a point on carriers.

[Bedford Roughyed]

I usually agree but he does have a point on carriers.

For every point he hits on, he will miss on another 2 or 3.

Don't need Tornados as we have cruise missiles - except the only aircraft carrying our own (operated) cruise missiles is the Tornado.
Tanks useless cause they will get bombed without aircover, but eurofighter which provides that cover = bad.
Eurofigher is over-specced, late and overpriced = bad
F-35 is overspecced, late, overprised but american = good
Tornado and Typhoon designed for cold war = bad, F-18 designed for cold war = good

[l'angelo mysterioso]

An interesting, and blunt, assessment of the defence review. In short, the author says that Cameron ballsed it up completely.

I'll go with nearly all of that

[ckn]

A commentary on a letter to The Times by former senior armed forces figures on the defence cuts, especially on the Harrier v Tornado point.

It's also interesting that the defence review has sneaked in a cut to the new Chinook helicopters from 22 to 12. Now, weren't the Tories routinely criticising Labour for short-changing the troops in Afghanistan, yet they're cutting back on the critical equipment Labour actually planned and budgeted to buy?

[Martyn Sadler]

A commentary on a letter to The Times by former senior armed forces figures on the defence cuts, especially on the Harrier v Tornado point.

It's also interesting that the defence review has sneaked in a cut to the new Chinook helicopters from 22 to 12. Now, weren't the Tories routinely criticising Labour for short-changing the troops in Afghanistan, yet they're cutting back on the critical equipment Labour actually planned and budgeted to buy?

We always seem to be in more danger under Tory governments, which is ironic, given their supposed dedication to our armed forces.

I can only imagine the Argentineans are rubbing their hands with glee.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

We always seem to be in more danger under Tory governments, which is ironic, given their supposed dedication to our armed forces.

I can only imagine the Argentineans are rubbing their hands with glee.

'supposed' indeed
tory governments have never done this
think about appeasement in the thirties: even if Chamberlain was 'buying time', which is highly contentious his party were in favour of it, and supported the nationalists in the Spanish civil war.

the 1957 defence review brought out by the infamous Duncan Sandys would have destroyed the airforce and much else of the defence services

The Tories defence cuts of the early eighties have been cited as an incentive for Argentina to invade the Falklands/malvinas.

why would the Argentinians be rubbing their hasnds with glee? In 1982 there was no air base on the falklands, satellite survbeillance was in its infancy, the navy wasn't equipped with conventionally armed cruise missile carrying submarines, thre airforce wasn't equipped with cargomasters and ther argentinians no longer have the capability to mopunt an operation like they did in 1982.

by the way it was a labour ghovernment that gave its approval for the dropping of two atom bombs on japan, and brought into service ssbns and the invincible class carriers. I'm not a labour supporter and I certainly don't believe we have ever needed nuclesar weapons, but the idea that the tories are 'strong' on defence and labour is 'weak' is wide of the mark

[Bedford Roughyed]

We always seem to be in more danger under Tory governments, which is ironic, given their supposed dedication to our armed forces.

I can only imagine the Argentineans are rubbing their hands with glee.

Yes rubbing there hands with glee that people think they are a credible threat. They are far less capable now and the Islands far better defended, but it makes a good soundbite.

The Chinooks had not been ordered and will arrive after we leave Afghanistan, cutting them makes no difference now as they are so late the party will be well over.

[JohnM]

I can only imagine the Argentineans are rubbing their hands with glee.

Why do you say that?

[ckn]

We always seem to be in more danger under Tory governments, which is ironic, given their supposed dedication to our armed forces.

I can only imagine the Argentineans are rubbing their hands with glee.

It would take a minor miracle for the Argentinians to successfully invade the Falklands. The few Typhoons we have based there as well as the trivial number of ships is more than enough to fight off any Argentinian threat. That said, if they had the capacity to get a surprise strike in and take out the runway then we're rapidly decommissioning all the assets capable of taking the Falklands back again.