Dixie
Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Hi all,
quote:
Navy cuts will put lives at risk, warn Forces chiefs
The scrapping of the Harriers and aircraft carrier Ark Royal means Britain can no longer carry out amphibious operations without putting troops’ lives at “considerable risk”, senior officers and defence experts have warned the Prime Minster.
By Daily Telegraph UK
In a private letter, passed to The Daily Telegraph, the former Navy and Army chiefs warn the Prime Minister that there are serious flaws in last October's defence review.
The scrapping of the Royal Navy's Harrier fleet, in particular, has "profound consequences" that "strike at the heart of our Defence structure", they say.
The authors, who include Field Marshal Lord Bramall, the former head of the Armed Forces, as well as six retired admirals and three generals, say the move undermines the Navy's ability to protect the Army or Royal Marines on amphibious operations.
These can no longer be attempted against "even a lightly armed aggressor" without "considerable risk" to the safety of soldiers, they say.
The letter's authors include Lt Gen Sir Hew Pike, the decorated Parachute Regiment officer, Maj Gen Julian Thompson, the Falklands commander, Admiral Sir Jeremy Black, who commanded the aircraft carrier Invincible in the Falklands, and Prof Nicholas Rodger, an Oxford academic.
They recommend a "rapid re-evaluation" of last year's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), which they warn was "unduly trusting in an uncertain, fast-moving and dangerous world".
Under the terms of the SDSR, the 70-strong fleet of Harriers will be scrapped or sold this year, while Ark Royal, the flagship of the Royal Navy, will be decommissioned and probably turned into a London heliport. Harriers are particularly crucial on amphibious operations as they provide the best close air support for ground troops.
The review, which also resulted in the destruction of the Nimrod surveillance fleet, was ordered as part of government spending cuts which saw 7.5 per cent slashed from the annual £37 billion defence budget.
There is growing controversy over the scale of the cuts, particularly in light of the chaos enveloping the Middle East and the crisis in Libya, where hundreds of Britons have been trapped for several days.
Last night, Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, added his voice to those calling for the SDSR to be reopened. He said it already looked "out of date" and that many of the assumptions about it had been "shaken over the past month".
"Recent dramatic events mean that the defence review must be reopened and perhaps even rethought," Mr Murphy said. "It would be sensible to stop and reflect again on our nation's strategic defence needs."
The letter to Mr Cameron highlights the dangers to national security of scrapping so much of Britain's defence capability at a time of global uncertainty.
It warns of the "downstream consequences that strike at the heart of our Defence structure" by scrapping the force of 70 Harrier GR7 and GR9s that are the most advanced close air support available to British forces.
"This undermines support of the Army and of the Royal Marines in their amphibious role. This valuable operation can no longer be attempted even against a lightly armed aggressor without considerable risk."
The signatories argue that the review “led to a very rapid and radical disposal of assets, which, more alarmingly, has demanded the loss of some core strategic capabilities”.
“In our carefully considered view, it is in this latter respect that, in certain key areas, the decisions now about to be implemented merit rapid re-evaluation to avoid the potentially permanent loss of important military capabilities.”
The letter claims that £5 billion could be saved by keeping a small force of 40 Harriers and a similar number of the much more costly Tornados. “Defence in peace means deterrence by showing capability and determination. Failure to do so leads to war,” the letter warns.
Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, said: “Difficult decisions had to be taken to tackle the £38 billion deficit left by Labour at the Ministry of Defence and the SDSR will not be reopened.” The Government has been accused of “staggering complacency” over the view expressed in the SDSR, which said: “In the short term, there are few circumstances we can envisage where the ability to deploy air power from the sea will be essential.”
Naval commanders say the short-sightedness of scrapping Ark Royal and the Harrier becom es more apparent by the day as North Africa destabilises.
During the evacuation of Lebanon in 2006, Navy jets made low passes over guerrilla positions which “quickly scared them off”, an officer involved said. Similarly, Harriers were used as a “show of force” during the Sierra Leone crisis in 2000 and frightened off rebels.
“Unless our coalition partners can provide carrier strike then we would not be able to provide adequate protection to our troops,” a senior Navy officer said.
Cdr John Muxworthy, of the UK National Defence Association, said: “It cannot be lost on our enemies around the world, who will be watching the British Government’s feeble response to the Libya crisis with mounting glee.
“After all, they will reason, if this is the best Britain can do now, how will the British cope next year when their Armed Forces are even smaller?”
The letter also points out that, by changing guidelines dictating the length of rest between operational tours, the Forces could generate more manpower.
The letter was also sent to the Defence Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and the chairman of the Commons defence committee.
Leo "Apollo11"
Really? Looks to me more like the RN trying to claw back a bigger share of the budget at the expense of a certain air force. The Army are siding with the RN on this one IMO because:
The RN want to operate their own Harrier fleet, this gives the Army an excuse/reason to make the point that the Army Air Corps should continue. The operation of the Harrier currently seems to be a central arguement of maintaining the viability of the FAA, if the FAA falls away then the Army are worried that the AAC will likewise either be disbanded or folded into the RAF. The issue that they seem to be missing is that it costs more to maintain two smaller fleets of jets than 1 larger one.
The problem is that everyone is too blinkered. The RAF are taking funding away from the other two services (in their view). But if the RAF was disbanded would the other two spend their money on fast jet support and strategic AT & AAR? Or would they spend it on the toys they're complaining about losing because of the defence cuts?
_____________________________
 Bigger boys stole my sig |
Printable Version
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 
And Alex Jones must have been hopping with glee to get that "interview"...
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread