Robbing Peter to pay Paul?

[Frank S.]

At the same time that the UK pledges $910 million to rebuild Iraq, defence is to make 1 billion in pounds (= 1.7 $ billion) cuts. Any connection?


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 38,00.html

Defence chiefs angry over huge cuts

Iraq victors told billions must go from equipment budget

Peter Beaumont, Jason Burke and Faisal Islam
Sunday October 19, 2003
The Observer

Britain's defence chiefs have been told to make billion-pound cuts to their highest-profile equipment programmes over the next decade as part of a major restructuring of the armed forces.
The cuts, to be announced in a White Paper next month, have prompted anger among some senior officers, since they are expected to affect everything from the number of new warships and fighter jets to a body armour for individual infantrymen.

The deputy chief of the defence staff (equipment capability), Lieutenant General Rob Fulton, has told his capability managers - who specify the future equipment needs of the three services - to find £1 billion in savings across each of the military's 12 'capability areas' for the next decade.

Only eight of 12 Type-45 destroyers are now likely to be purchased and the order for two new aircraft carriers may be reduced. Purchase orders of the 'Eurofighter' Typhoon combat jet, now grounded due to brake problems, is likely to be cut from 232 to 130.

The first batch of jets, which cost £80m apiece, has already been delivered, with a second batch due to be ordered in the new year. But a third is now likely to be cancelled.

Also at risk is funding for training programmes that give the British Army and other services their edge, as well as a plan to equip all soldiers with self-protection body armour and a high technology 'network capability' to keep troops updated on developments on the battlefield as they happen.

General Sir Michael Walker, chief of the defence staff and Britain's most senior soldier, has privately called the plans 'incomprehensible'.

The aim of the reforms, Government sources say, is to produce a leaner, more effective fighting force that is suited to contemporary demands for rapid intervention and peacekeeping.

But senior military sources have also told The Observer that plans for a new medium tank that can be carried in the RAF's transport planes will go ahead but in reduced form, confirming fears that the review is as much about saving money as redesigning the armed forces.

Some of the Army's most famous tank regiments may also lose their heavy armour. The equivalent of an entire armoured brigade of Challenger II tanks, about 120, may have to be taken out of active service.

The complaints by senior officers, who feel that the armed forces should have received a 'war bonus' after Iraq, comes amid a wider row over money with the Treasury, which some accuse of reneging on a promise to fund unforeseen costs from the war.

Soldiers of every rank are angry and disappointed at the tough position taken by Chancellor Gordon Brown in this autumn's negotiations over the Ministry of Defence's budget for next year.

Military sources say that fully equipping British forces for the campaign this spring involved 197 separate emergency requisitions - for everything from machine guns to desert uniforms - that were not covered by previous budgets or the Chancellor's extra £3bn contingency fund for the war. The extra demands ran to 'several hundreds of millions', they say.

Whitehall sources also say that an additional £100m is urgently needed to train the thousands of recruits who have volunteered in the wake of the war. Although conflicts historically provoke a wave of recruitment, no one at the Ministry of Defence had anticipated the cost.

There are also concerns over the substantial costs of new accounting procedures. Military officers have derided the procedures as requiring the purchase of ammunition on a 'sale and return' basis, while the Treasury has accused the military of losing vast sums of money through incompetent accounting.

The defence chief's protests are likely to fall on deaf ears however. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon had what Whitehall sources described as a 'positive' meeting with Brown last week.

'We are concentrating on capabilities not platforms,' said one Whitehall defence source. 'The truth is that one Apache helicopter is worth a whole squadron of heavy tanks.'

Similar changes have been pushed through in the US by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, despite fierce opposition from conservative military officers. British plans to reduce the number of infantry regiments, leaked this summer, have now been put on hold.

[kwew]

Who's brilliant idea is this?
If im not mistaken some of our lads went out to Iraq without the proper equipment (guns that worked,body armour,general kit that some were forced to buy from there own pocket) and suffered as a consquence, so shouldnt spending be increased. Especially as the world that we live in nowadays is becoming such a volatile place.
No offence to reservists but there was too many of them being sent out to Iraq when the job that needed doing requires full time training, so again we should be spending more.
Its an utter disgrace, its OK that we let 50,000 asylum seekers stay and can pay the millions for them but we cant help those men that are serving there country. When will the madness end?

[Frank S.]

Yeah, there's a clear parallel between the UK and the US here.
Rumsfeld wants to close most of the military bases here in the US, but that will mean much reduced access to health care for military personnel, among other problems. And as seen in the situation of the wounded at Ft. Stewart, this doesn't bode well.
The kit. You may remember reports of US soldiers from armored units in particular having to arm themselves with captured AK47s because armored vehicles typically carry small arms for only half the crew, but mission requirements force the soldiers to dismount and patrol.
A recipe for blue on blue.
There also exists a shortage of 40.000 flak vest equipped with ceramic trauma plates.

[Wholley]

The Britsh Government have a long history of depleting force effectiveness after a major conflict.The most recent being FI.They had to pay millions in reparations after the loss of Atlantic Conveyor due to cut-backs in the RFA just before the war.LLoyd's of London do not insure a ship lost in "Time of War".The crews of Sir Galahad,(Not to forget the Welsh Guards),HMS Sheffield and HMS Antelope were burned badly as a result of nylon kit that sticks to the skin and burns hot,therefore requiring more medical treament for the wounded.But its initially very cheap.After FI the Navy was cut back further with the de-commisioning of many perectly serviceble warships and RFA's.As a result of these new cuts I'm wondering if we could ever expect the help of our cousin's again as under the helm of Blair all the Brits could put forward would be the much touted "Sluggish Reaction Force"under the command of a Frenchman or worse an Italian(when it would become a"No Reaction Force").
This in no way denigrates what the British achieved in Afganistan or Iraq.
It just worries me that they might not be able to help in Syria.
Wholley.

edited once by wholley.

[kwew]

God help us if the liberal democrates get in the defence budget will stretch to a stick (for close combat), BB guns and a Mini (old shape of course) as the armoured car. It worries me because one thing the military says in its brochures is that you have job security. If I should earn a commission i dont want to lose it after all the hard work, i know this is the same for thousands of lads my age. I want to serve this country but its looking more and more likely that after training I may be forced to take my training to another country like Australia or Canada (i dont know whether its possible, there just examples). this saddens me as a lot of these lads wanting to join up have a lot to offer and this country is losing one of its best natural resources.