The website and forum will be intermittently unavailable while we're making some security updates.
File uploads to the download hangar are also disabled until further notice.

The State of our Military Forces.

Have a story, topic or report on what's really happening in the world's militaries? Talk about it here.
Post Reply
User avatar
nickblack423
MAIW Veteran
MAIW Veteran
Posts: 2155
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:43
Version: FS9
Location: Ipswich, UK
Contact:

The State of our Military Forces.

Post by nickblack423 »

Here we go. I thought I'd kick start a bit of a natter with a long asked "Time Bomb" of a question. What do people really think of the state of our Military?
Personally, talking about the UK, it looks as though, technologically we are finally taking a bit of a step in the right direction, with the Typhoon coming into service rapidly and the advent of the A400M and FSTA around the corner. The personal kit that the troops get provided with nowadays is second only to the USA which is good to see. However, even in the short time that I have been serving with the RAF I can see that we are stretching, the Army especially, far too much. If we are going to focus on policing every little country that we find terrorists in, then we are going to find our forces stretched to a point where half of the guys 'bang out' and no-one wants to join up to replace them.
The trouble is I dont even have a clue of a solution. These people need to be dealt with, but when do you decide enough is enough and back away? Is that shirking responsibility?
"Pain Heals......Chicks Dig Scars.....Glory, Lasts Forever!!!"
Image
Image
reconmercs
MAIW Veteran
MAIW Veteran
Posts: 2565
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 19:55
Version: FS9
Location: KRDU

Post by reconmercs »

This is an issue we've been dealing with in the States ever since the current Iraq conflict started. I personally have friends that are on their 2nd and 3rd tours of duty in Iraq which definately does make them question if re-enlisting is financially and family wise anymore. I think both of our governments are going to have to reevaluate priorities when it comes to deploying forces overseas for long periods of times if for no more reason than what effect it has on soldiers long term..definately a complicated situation... thoughts?
User avatar
Firebird
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 12113
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:04
Version: FS9
Location: EGLL

Post by Firebird »

Well Nick, if I had the solution I would like to think that I would be in a higher pay scale than I am.

For what it's worth, it seems to me that the move away from rigid defence against the Warsaw Pact to a more flexible response is the right move, the trouble is, as you say, the amount of small Bush wars that the force can deal with at one time.

I suspect that this is the reason that the subject of an EU Armed Forces crops up on a more frequent basis. I suspect that Joe Tax-Payer is in the end going to vote for a joint force with the French et al rather than pay for a bigger force.

Rather depressing thought though, as I am sure that everybody in each European country can see the rather perilous by product of this strategy.
Steve
_______________________________________________________
Image
Quid Si Coelum Ruat
_______________________________________________________
User avatar
nickblack423
MAIW Veteran
MAIW Veteran
Posts: 2155
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:43
Version: FS9
Location: Ipswich, UK
Contact:

Post by nickblack423 »

Well if we end up joining forces witht the French then I'm outa here. That really would never work. We are far too independant as a Nation. Look at the number of operations UK forces go into alone, or with the USA only, and then some other Nations help out with token forces after. All respect to those who do, it is invaluable, but would the same happen in a EU force? I think so, and it would rip the EU apart, as we are all about as similar as dust and water.
"Pain Heals......Chicks Dig Scars.....Glory, Lasts Forever!!!"
Image
Image
User avatar
VulcanDriver
MAIW Staff
MAIW Staff
Posts: 4501
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 20:58
Version: FSX
Location: EGHH

Post by VulcanDriver »

I personally feel that both Bush and Blair thought Iraq would be a quick strike and then the Iraqi forces would takeover. However they miscalculated.

I remember a US officer being interviewed on UK TV News about a couple of days into the Iraqi invasion. He pointed to some palm trees and said "this place reminds me of Nam, I honestly hope we don't make the same mistake twice". I trust someone has an exit strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan, I can't see one to be honest...

Re the RAF, I do hope we get the aircraft we need. The Typhoon is a good start and when (if) the F-35 (JSF) comes in to service, it will make a formidable combat team.

John
John

"That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The A-bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives." - Admiral William Leahy
User avatar
nickblack423
MAIW Veteran
MAIW Veteran
Posts: 2155
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:43
Version: FS9
Location: Ipswich, UK
Contact:

Post by nickblack423 »

Well at least it looks like we've found some brains and decided to buy a 5th C-17 soon. Hope we buy the other 4 too. Those things are awesome and I know the Army won't dare give them up now.
"Pain Heals......Chicks Dig Scars.....Glory, Lasts Forever!!!"
Image
Image
User avatar
Firebird
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 12113
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:04
Version: FS9
Location: EGLL

Post by Firebird »

nickblack423 wrote:Well at least it looks like we've found some brains and decided to buy a 5th C-17 soon. Hope we buy the other 4 too. Those things are awesome and I know the Army won't dare give them up now.
That doesn't look like its going to happen, Nick. Boeing has given an ultimatum to the the US Congress, commit to more by Aug 31 or we stop buying long lead items. What this effectively means is that whilst the line could be started back up again, it would cost a lot more.

As Congress is is p***ed over the 767 Tanker debacle, my guess is that the deadline will quietly come and go. Sad and yet pedictable.
Steve
_______________________________________________________
Image
Quid Si Coelum Ruat
_______________________________________________________
User avatar
nickblack423
MAIW Veteran
MAIW Veteran
Posts: 2155
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:43
Version: FS9
Location: Ipswich, UK
Contact:

Post by nickblack423 »

Well yet another great piece of procurement from the UK Government. They should've just gambled and bought 10 C17's when they first proposed getting them. They have proved to be the best Airlifter ever devised already.
"Pain Heals......Chicks Dig Scars.....Glory, Lasts Forever!!!"
Image
Image
User avatar
nickblack423
MAIW Veteran
MAIW Veteran
Posts: 2155
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:43
Version: FS9
Location: Ipswich, UK
Contact:

Re: The State of our Military Forces.

Post by nickblack423 »

nickblack423 wrote:The personal kit that the troops get provided with nowadays is second only to the USA which is good to see.
I'll re-iterate this quote after going and getting my kit for Afghanistan today. I reckon close to £1000 worth of kit on the commercial market. I was amazed.
"Pain Heals......Chicks Dig Scars.....Glory, Lasts Forever!!!"
Image
Image
User avatar
Weescotty
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 2770
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 22:15
Version: FS9
Location: Sydney

Post by Weescotty »

Typical M.O.D. thinking -

Lynx AH1 - All the Army pilots who had gone to the U.S. had come back with glowing reports on the Apache and told the M.O.D. - "We need the Apache"
What the M.O.D. do? Buy the Lynx AH7 then the AH9 to prop up Westlands. Finally get Apaches when the deal is they are assembled by Westlands.

Nimrod AEW - Wasn't until they had ploughed billions into it they finally gave up and bought the E3, despite the RAF themselves saying they wanted the E3.

Funny story -
I was working for Westlands (Navy Lynx upgrades) when the Apache was announced and they proudly said it was the new British made attack helicopter.
1) Airframe, USA
2) Weapons systems, Bombadier, Irish
3) Engines, Rolls Royce, German
User avatar
Firebird
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 12113
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:04
Version: FS9
Location: EGLL

Post by Firebird »

Weescotty wrote:Typical M.O.D. thinking -

Nimrod AEW - Wasn't until they had ploughed billions into it they finally gave up and bought the E3, despite the RAF themselves saying they wanted the E3.
To be a fair, I try to be at least, the RAF made the situation worse by deliberately and constantly moving the goalposts as far as performance was concerned (at least according to all rumours doing the rounds whilst I was in the mob). As you say it only wanted the E-3 and seemingly almost deliberately wasted money to make the Nimrod AEW unacceprable.

On the Phantom replacement, the RAF wanted the F-14D, but knew that it's cost was going to be prohibitive, so wanted the F-15K (two-seat fighter) instead but we all know what the Government's choice was.
Steve
_______________________________________________________
Image
Quid Si Coelum Ruat
_______________________________________________________
User avatar
nickblack423
MAIW Veteran
MAIW Veteran
Posts: 2155
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:43
Version: FS9
Location: Ipswich, UK
Contact:

Post by nickblack423 »

Well it just seems to be that way always huh. Take the A400M, far better idea for the RAF would be to mothball the C-130K, keep around 25 C-130J's for intra theatre stuff, and buy a fleet of 20 C-17's for Strategic airlift. That way we could use them as they were designed instead of with all the restrictions of the lease we have. i.e Airdrop, paras, and STOL. Plus they can take a hell of alot of kit long range.
"Pain Heals......Chicks Dig Scars.....Glory, Lasts Forever!!!"
Image
Image
User avatar
GZR_Sactargets
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 984
Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
Version: FS9
Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)

Post by GZR_Sactargets »

I did some duty at SAC Headquarters as Director of Targets and As Director of Intelligence Systems. At the Pentagon, I was the Air Force Program Officer for the General Defense Intelligence Program. All those are related to some aspect of Budgeting or Procurement. It all starts with the Secretary of Defense establishing a war-fighting concept. For many years it was "Fight two and one-half" wars. That meant two full scale engagements in Europe and the Far East and a 'contingency'. The Service Chiefs then layout their concepts for force structure to be able to do that. Enmeshed in that are specific weapon and support systems. They consider present capability, items in the pipelines, and future items that will be needed. Then they establish their priorities for those within the budget. Changes in budget mean either more or less capabilty. With changes in the "Percieved Threat" you also get adjustments to the concepts and thus to force structure and procurement. Threats are based on several items: Enemy capability, Forces, and Intent. Intelligence can usually provide the assessments of those-with intent being the hardest.
It is relatively easy to "bean count" it is very difficult to accurately assess intent.
Those external to the working of this process tend to get tunnel vision about a particular weapon system and may miss "the big picture." However those who think they have seen the big picture sometimes miss the importance of a particular system. BTW for the most part it is trained manpower that makes the difference. :idea:
GZR_SACTARGETS
User avatar
VulcanDriver
MAIW Staff
MAIW Staff
Posts: 4501
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 20:58
Version: FSX
Location: EGHH

Post by VulcanDriver »

Firebird wrote:
nickblack423 wrote:Well at least it looks like we've found some brains and decided to buy a 5th C-17 soon. Hope we buy the other 4 too. Those things are awesome and I know the Army won't dare give them up now.
That doesn't look like its going to happen, Nick. Boeing has given an ultimatum to the the US Congress, commit to more by Aug 31 or we stop buying long lead items. What this effectively means is that whilst the line could be started back up again, it would cost a lot more.
I've heard that the 5th C-17 has already been ordered for the RAF.

John
John

"That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The A-bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives." - Admiral William Leahy
Post Reply