Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How Blair is destroying our Forces
Forest    6/19/2006 9:05:43 PM
How Blair is destroying our Forces One reason British troops continue to be killed and injured in southern Iraq is that they are expected to patrol in lightly-armoured Land Rovers which give them no protection against roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades. Meanwhile, their American counterparts walk away unscathed, even when their RG31 armoured patrol vehicles are hit by the same explosives. Yet the Ministry of Defence has not equipped the British Army with the RG31, even though it is built by a British-owned company. This is a small but chilling example of the shambles the MoD is making of Britain's defences, thanks not least to the way Tony Blair is trying to pursue two contradictory policies at the same time. This has not been properly appreciated because media coverage of defence has become so scrappy. On one hand, as we saw yet again with his recent visit to Washington, Mr Blair tries to keep in with the Americans by committing thousands of hard-pressed and ill-equipped British troops to fighting the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush and Blair still like to talk of keeping alive the Joint Strike Fighter project, the last major example of Anglo-US collaboration on military hardware. On the other, as we saw again with his subsequent visit to President Chirac, Mr Blair has stealthily agreed to Britain playing a key role in the planned European Rapid Reaction Force. For this, he and the MoD have been prepared to restructure the British Army, scrapping the old regiments, and to commit colossal sums to buying every kind of European equipment, including two giant aircraft carriers, which we are to build with the French. The MoD's top priority is to meet the "Helsinki goals", agreed by EU leaders in 1999, on the creation of an integrated European defence force. The project is co-ordinated by the European Defence Agency in Brussels, led by a former senior MoD official, Nick Witney. To this end the MoD has been prepared to spend billions on EU-made missiles, ships, trucks, artillery and armoured vehicles, not to mention a French-led project to build unmanned aircraft, which Blair discussed with Chirac earlier this month, following Britain's withdrawal from a similar joint project with the US. This has left the British Army starved of proper resources for its current tasks and so overstretched that it must rely on thousands of territorial soldiers, with its morale sapped by the dangerous lack of proper equipment and by the MoD's insistence on enforcing the European Convention on Human Rights in situations to which it was never intended to apply. The real problem is that all this has been so hidden away behind layers of stealth and deception that no one ever asks any longer that fundamental question: what are our Armed Forces for? Behind the scenes, the driving force of national policy is to fit us to play our part in building up a European expeditionary force, capable of operating anywhere in the world. But no one can explain the purpose of such a force, for essentially it has only one: to promote the cause of European integration. This leaves us, in an increasingly darkling world, with forces ill-designed to protect any national British interests. Indeed, so dependent are we now becoming on equipment bought from our EU partners, including our most basic guns and ammunition, that it will soon be inconceivable that we could operate without their consent. Meanwhile, our armed services are being asked to perform dangerous tasks, knowing that they no longer have much practical support from a Government bent on exploiting them politically, for purposes they find it increasingly hard to under-stand. When the final charge sheet is drawn up against the way Mr Blair governed this country, one of the most damning charges will be the way in which he destroyed its Armed Forces. Yet the remarkable thing will be how almost nobody at the time noticed it was happening. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/18/nbook18.xml#1
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3
flamingknives       1/15/2007 1:40:24 PM
"In the UK it's the same? "

Is it though?

"If your buying british why not buy argos?!"

Because Argos don't make chairs, they re-sell foreign ones

"i know as i have done some"

Was it the spelling, punctuation and grammar that got you? ;)

"imagine the PR bonus if the MOD got dragonskin armor (controversial but effective) for all troops"

I would imagine that it would go along the lines of: "UK shuns British suppliers for unproven US designs"

"It also worries me how some officers and MOD people make the case that you cant wear your own gear -"

Do they? Do they give reasons? Things like Infra-Red Reflectivity compliance?

"and its well known that the government contracts pay way over the odds for services."

Do you know why?
 
Quote    Reply

bothanhunter?       1/15/2007 3:29:22 PM

"In the UK it's the same? "

Yes as I have seen officers telling people (including myself) that non-standard issue gear was not allowed - (i am not sure on the regulations of this - it may well be their own high up opinions interfering)

"If your buying british why not buy argos?!"

Because Argos don't make chairs, they re-sell foreign ones
True they do - yet i'm sure some of them will be british - and either way i'm sure you can find an office chair for under £100 thats made in britain and thus not needing £1000 chairs. (although i'm also of the opinion that only a few of these were bought - probably for some VIP conference room)

"i know as i have done some"

Was it the spelling, punctuation and grammar that got you? ;)
lol actually that was a small part of the job, more internet related actually, but i do suffer on that score occasionally!

"imagine the PR bonus if the MOD got dragonskin armor (controversial but effective) for all troops"

I would imagine that it would go along the lines of: "UK shuns British suppliers for unproven US designs"
well that depends on the spin - i'm not sure of the present suppliers of body armour, still can't imagine the Sun complaining

"It also worries me how some officers and MOD people make the case that you cant wear your own gear -"

Do they? Do they give reasons? Things like Infra-Red Reflectivity compliance?
Again see top, a lot of the time its down to officers having their way. Not actually seen any given reasons for it, more just that its not issue gear therefore not approved of. i generally ignore them tho.

"and its well known that the government contracts pay way over the odds for services."

Do you kno
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc       1/15/2007 3:47:26 PM
Blair to cut UK nuke stockpile by 20%, reality is UK has too much military for its security needs and cannot justify more than say 25 nukes as it has no nuclear enemies. Plus it adds credibility when dealing with Iran and NK.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       1/15/2007 4:07:29 PM
The Sun not complaining? That's like the a lion going vegetarian or Tony Blair telling the unvarnished truth.

Security clearance is fairly expensive and precludes using cheap Polish labour.

Not that the MoD isn't guilty of some outrageous contract errors, or gets gouged by contractors, but it's not always obvious how much military specific stuff actually costs.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       1/15/2007 4:23:23 PM
From what I have heard, the so-called 'Dragonskin' armour is vastly overrated. A much better bet would be the designs from Crye Precision, which seem to be getting very good reviews. In addition, from what I've heard, the existing UK armour that they've been rolling out recently is actually very good.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       1/21/2007 7:32:04 PM
Do you know why?
Not always :) however in this case it was work that in the civilian sector would charge around £100 a day yet the Government was paying £200, although higher security clearance was needed this i didn't think justified it. However in london it is known that government contracts for such things are bountiful.

I don't know where you get your ideas about commercial rates from. My last contract as a small team leader to a UK bank 5 years ago was for £330 per day and before that as an ordinary worker it was for £250 per day. Standard commercial rates at the time.


 
Quote    Reply

jamesbaf       2/11/2007 11:45:34 AM
The British Army should get rid of their Land Rovers and get more Warriors and Challenger 2's and then hardly any Brit would be killed by a road side bomb or an RPG because the Warrior(armoured pwersonnel carrier) and the Challenger 2(tank) are the best armoured in the world.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       2/11/2007 12:57:08 PM
Jamesbaf:

I'd hesitate to call you as thick as two short planks, since planks thick enough to do you justice are called logs. Being opinionated is one thing, but being opinionated without knowing a clue if it bit you on the arrse makes you look extremely foolish indeed.

First, there's the logistical idiocy of using heavy mech forces in place of lighter vehicles. These large, heavy, tracked vehicles damage the roads, need more fuel and maintenance support (hence more softskin logistics convoys) and can't get everywhere you need to go. On top of that, you're basically losing the 'hearts and minds' battle in a single step.

Secondly, it's proven that heavy armour is not safe against IEDs. The targets get fewer (logistics again) and the bombs get bigger.
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       2/13/2007 9:36:43 PM
The ultimate political conumdrum...... As a national leader I have X euros, pounds, dollars , etc. to spend: do I err on the side of spending more money on the safety of my country or do I err on spending more on programs that will get me and my homeboys  re-elected.? Does anyone with an IQ higher than their finger and toe count believe the pols wouldn't go for the latter choice? OK, one in a million.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics