howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
from the guardian today.
The army will be reduced to its smallest size since the Boer war under plans to be announced by Liam Fox, the defence secretary, on Monday.
It will shrink from more than 100,000 regulars to about 84,000, as reforms will make reserves better trained and better paid, officials said. The shake-up will take place after British troops give up their combat role in Afghanistan in 2014.
The Treasury has agreed to bolster the defence budget, with £1.5bn earmarked to help pay for beefed-up reserves and more funding for military equipment.
The money will pay for 14 delayed Chinook helicopters due to come into service after 2014, three new US Rivet spy planes, and upgrades to the army's Warrior armoured vehicles.
A review has proposed that the Territorial Army should retain its current strength of 36,000, but about 5,000 reservists should be trained for frontline operations. Reservists would also contribute more to "homeland security" work, dealing with the aftermath of terrorist attacks and civil emergencies.
The review was conducted by General Sir Nicholas Houghton, vice-chief of the defence staff, Julian Brazier, Conservative MP and former TA officer, and Lt Gen Graeme Lamb, former head of the UK's special forces. It is understood their proposals have been accepted by Fox.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#2
The team conducting the review is a good one and very sound on Defence matters. Nevertheless this is very disturbing and I would prefer Defence to have a much higher spending priority than anything else.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
the bit that bothered me was the deployment of more t.a. to replace the professionals, rather interestingly we are one of the countries with the lowest percentage of reservists.
ours stand at 20% , the u.s.a. 50%, canada 44% and austrlia 37%.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#4
A good point Howard.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#5
And in Switzerland only 5% are professional regulars. The rest are on national service or in the active reserves. If that's the model that keeps a country out of a war for over a thousand years, I would vote for it.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#6
the swiss know what they are doing, nobody will attack the country which holds all their money.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#7
Used to be true- no longer.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#8
Why would anyone bother with Switzerland, they only have lakes, mountains, cuckoo clocks and banks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#9
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#10
Our world-wide interests, being an island nation and trade concerns rule out the Swiss model. We need a professional standing army, navy and air force of a large enough size to be trained and equipped to perform a whole range of roles in a variety of operational environments, desert, artic, mountain etc for which a critical mass is essential.
In respect of that critical mass look only at one unit, the Special Forces, 22 SAS. This unit recruits from the regular army units the best and most suited candidates after a grueling selection process that most fail. There are already concerns that an Army reduced to 100,000 will reduce the pool of SAS candidates sufficiently to impact of the quality of this regiment. Special Forces are an essential part of what is needed to deal with today's asymmetrical and unconventional threats.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#11
Every military engagement since the Falklands has been not defence of the realm but the pursuit of foreign policy by military means. The Swiss model plus a nuclear deterrent would suit us fine. It would also mean that every able bodied adult male would undergo military training, not a bad thing for the nation's future.
And those world-wide interests you mention, Barry, at least the legitimate ones, are now limited to the Falklands, Gibraltar, BVI, Cayman Islands, Turks & Caicos, Bahamas, Bermuda and a few other isolated rocks in various Oceans.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#12
Our interests also relate to the keeping open of worldwide trade routes (piracy threat not to mention possible rogue state threats). There are also defence obligations to allies and, indeed, there is nothing wrong with using our military to pursue foreign policy objectives either when needed. That is not necessarily to say that every such objective in the last decade or two was right but the capability is needed for when it is right to do so.
But even if we reduce this to what you think is legitimate Peter, that is still enough to justify the maintenance and prioritising a strong and flexible armed forces and would certainly require aircraft carrier capability, amphibious capability and to achieve the critcial mass to protect the quality experience and training of our special forces.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#13
in other words oill,gas and all other things related to making more dosh for the cash strapped engerny supply companys etc.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#14
Brian - and what is wrong with making sure that essential fuel supplies to the UK are secure?
If they were to be cut off we would all suffer and thousands would be out of jobs.
If that happened you would be the first to attack the government for not doing enough to protect supplies so please let us not have any double standards.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#15
barryw,actully no i wouldnt,it would get rid of those greedy energy supplyers once and for all.i would like to see it go back under goverment controll [along with the railways],it would allso be better regulated.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#16
LOL Brian - you really are out of touch. We can discuss your preference for having an inefficient and expensive state monopoly of power provision in this country but that is a different issue to what we are discussing here.
We are discussing defence and the need to ensure secure trade routes.
A state monopoly would still need to have exactly the same energy security as private companies and the same international threats would still be there.
Energy security is one of the big potential flashpoints for the future.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#17
so were getting a reservsist army,might as well go the belguim/vatican route then.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#18
yes howard
the tory standard reported the very same reductions stating we would no lionger be able to defend our country in times of need
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#19
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#20
took this earlier so where is the logic?
