RAF Typhoons confirmed gunless?

On Fri, 14 May 2004 14:36:09 +0000 (UTC), Alex Walton wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2004 22:46:52 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

snip
3. FCLV (Future Command and Liaison Vehicle), cost: GBP 200 m. This
is a light truck, it looks like an over-sized land rover (there's a
picture at http://www.zen19725.zen.co.uk/weblog/art_222.html).
Britain is buying 400 of themv at over GBP 400,000 each, or about
20 times the cost of the land rovers they'll be replacing. I dare
say it's a good vehicle, but is it really worth 20 times more than
a land rover? I don't think so.

(Apologies for the late response, and a bit off topic but...)

FCLV replaces the Ferret scout car which, as it has been out of
service for over a decade, has seen it's roles temporarily filled by a
variety of vehicles including Land Rovers, CVR(T) and Saxon. FCLV is
in no way a replacement for the Land Rover - I wish it was as the MoD
would be buying thousands of them.

Also, the contract for 401 vehicles is worth GBP125m and includes some
support costs, putting each FCLV at less than GBP 315,000.

According to an MoD press release[1], the value of the contract was
"Over #200 million". I assume "#" means pounds.

However, the press release predate the reduction in the contract to
4012 vehicles -- did the unit cost go down during negotiations for
this reduction?

[1] http://www.mod.uk/dpa/way_ahead_for_mrav_and_fclv.htm

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

In article , phil hunt
writes
On Tue, 11 May 2004 00:18:02 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
wrote:

Apologies for late reply - been away...

You have touched on a philosophic point here. At present, the British
government believes that you can recruit soldiers as required, use them,
and after a number of years shove them back into a society that has
little understanding of either soldiering

Soldiering is like any other job, you don't have much understanding
of it until you've done it. I don't really see how that could not be
the case.

Actually a very critical job, and best done by people with a belief
system that matches role. When soldiers have spectacularly misbehaved
(extreme violence, murder) the army says 'well, we do get as many bad
eggs as the rest of society'. That is because they are desperate to
recruit (and, I am informed, get more bad eggs because of that). For a
role that is supposed to defend the realm and project Britain's moral
force in the world this is not a good start.

or the diplomatic realities
that justify its existence. It has always been true that an army
reflects the society from which it springs - and Britain should ponder
the implications of that.

Which are?

If society cannot motivate sufficient (good) people to join the forces
and carry out the necessary operations from time to time, then what does
it say about society's understanding of the need and its resolve to
fulfil it? Not a lot - more of this later.

We are sending troops out with the eyes (i.e. news cameras) of the world
upon them. They have to behave impeccably, obeying green card rules at
all times and put up with hell of a lot of provocation and danger. Not
for the faint hearted or those who only joined because they couldn't get
a job elsewhere (and joining the army is generally regarded as the last
resort in what are termed the lower socio-economic groups). And we do
have an influential political sector that openly describes our armed
forces as a necessary evil, rather than a profession that risks its
lives to support government policies. Nice clear message to the
prospective recruit?

All professions benefit from recruiting from a pool of people who
understand the role of that profession and are motivated to join it.
So, when Britain recruits its military forces mainly from the dole
queue, which has been the case for a long time now, what will be the
result?

Well, better than you might expect. While many priceless NCOs have
taken early departure, the training system remains intact, so the
recruits do get a solid foundation - unless they are headed for a a non-
combatant role in which case the soldiering capability will be 'thin'.
While we still develop a clutch of outstanding soldiers we have to cope
with the fact that the average recruit still lacks the depth of skill,
understanding and commitment of his counterpart of a few decades ago.

So, at present, the Home Office wants the population to act like sheep,
the Politically Correct want the population to act like amoebas, and the
Foreign Office would like a credible military posture.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I'll try to keep it short, before someone asks what this debate is doing
in RAM. Basically, pre-war, society had firm views about right and
wrong. If you did wrong you got punished, and the law supported the
citizen who acted to prevent a crime or who acted in defence against a
criminal act. Result - relatively few criminals and little violence.
Post-war, (possibly due to some rogue shrinks getting into the Home
Office) the criminal was transformed into the victim of circumstances.
It's all very well saying you understand why crimes are committed -
quite another to 'mediate' (yes, there is a formal programme for
criminals to say 'sorry' and for the victim to smile and say 'I know
you're a good lad at heart, I forgive you') between the criminal and the
victim and allow the criminal to mentally justify his actions - because
that is what they do. And as we know, self-help by the victim is
severely punished (ever read Pinocchio - the scene with the gorilla
judge?). Result? Little fear of social reaction or the legal system.
Criminals are turned out on a production line.

And the PC brigade would have people react in an even more docile manner
in the face of crime. And as for trying to bring your children up to
respect the law - absolutely criminal - don't people understand that all
behaviour is valid? (Apart from questioning PC that is...)

So how does society react to all this? Quite simply, if there are no
social values to be supported by the government then what is there that
is supposed to be worth defending? What exactly would society's sons
and daughters achieve in the forces that has any meaning?

Could this be why we have such trouble in recruiting, and get so many
bad eggs? (My understanding on this is from servicemen, not from my own
fevered imagination or hearsay.)

So, please forgive the tirade, but I think that post-war governments
have cocked it up. They have brought about the present high rate of
crime (last time I looked, we had more prisons, and criminals to live in
them, than any other country in Europe) and lack of social cohesion and
commitment to social values by having adopted a clutch of policies that
previous generations (going back a mere 10,000 years or so) would
instantly have recognised as stupid.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

On Mon, 17 May 2004 06:40:43 +0100, Dave Eadsforth wrote:

So how does society react to all this? Quite simply, if there are no
social values to be supported by the government then what is there that
is supposed to be worth defending? What exactly would society's sons
and daughters achieve in the forces that has any meaning?

Could this be why we have such trouble in recruiting, and get so many
bad eggs? (My understanding on this is from servicemen, not from my own
fevered imagination or hearsay.)

I think you'll being overly cynical. While Britain isn't perfect,
by any means (nor has it ever been), I doubt the armed forces would
have much problem getting recruits if the countrey really was in
serious danger, as it was in 1940.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

In article , phil hunt
writes
On Mon, 17 May 2004 06:40:43 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
wrote:

So how does society react to all this? Quite simply, if there are no
social values to be supported by the government then what is there that
is supposed to be worth defending? What exactly would society's sons
and daughters achieve in the forces that has any meaning?

Could this be why we have such trouble in recruiting, and get so many
bad eggs? (My understanding on this is from servicemen, not from my own
fevered imagination or hearsay.)

I think you'll being overly cynical.

Quite possibly - comes with increasing age and seeing doomed ideas
repackaged and re-presented every couple of decades.

While Britain isn't perfect,
by any means (nor has it ever been), I doubt the armed forces would
have much problem getting recruits if the countrey really was in
serious danger, as it was in 1940.

Yes, I agree that the country would pull together again if there were an
event that could be interpreted as a direct threat; although we have to
cope with the fact that throughout the 20th century (including the WWI
and WWII years) about 25 percent of the country were against military
action. But a direct threat of that type is much less likely to happen
than those which build up further afield; we need to be clever enough to
correctly gauge those events in the world that will, if not tackled in
time, cause big problems in the future; and take appropriate action.

Here we have a problem. For diplomatic reasons we cannot have the
government openly identifying specific future trouble spots. As usual,
diplomatic moves have to be made in secret until a plan of action
(usually involving allies) has been put together. Then we go through a
period of what is euphemistically termed 'political preparation of the
people' i.e. a spin programme (dossiers?) aimed at convincing us that
the action is necessary: we then send an under-equipped force. The 'can
do' professionalism of the best of our forces can then often do the job
in spite of the difficulties. (However, more and more military people
are warning that the whole effort will come apart at the seams if more
is not done to maintain our forces.)

In the coming decades we are virtually certain to have to undertake more
military operations around the world. The Iraq operation has been
viewed by many as being about oil - it could be in fact be one of many
'resource wars' that the west will be engaged in from now on. Rather
than having the public spun into supporting each individual operation,
which will become counter productive, we need to have a permanent
willingness to support military action; not 'political preparation' each
time. The people should be treated in a mature fashion; our society
will have to be geared to treating large military operations fact of
life (and not lulled by Mr Blair's assertion of a few years ago about
this generation being the first not to have to don a uniform). Military
service needs to be viewed as a necessary and respectable profession
(again), and given more depth within our society. This does not mean
that we have to become actually militaristic - simply reversing some of
the worst trends of the last few decades would probably be enough:

1. Make foreign affairs more of a serious political issue. We rely on
the world being a (half) orderly place so we can trade and generate the
resources we need for the NHS etc. etc. Society needs to be in no doubt
that this will require a greater willingness to support the maintenance
and use of our armed forces - that that means sufficient quantities of
first rate equipment and sufficient numbers of motivated recruits. This
will take leadership, and I doubt that we will see it from a prime
minister whose grasp on political reality was so weak that he once
belonged to CND. I mentioned Earnest Bevin a couple of posts ago. He
was instrumental in mobilising the labour movement against the threat of
Nazism prior to WWII and as Foreign Secretary was primarily responsible
for showing the need for Britain having its own nuclear weapons. But he
was no warmonger - just a perceptive man who knew what had to be done to
maintain peace. I wish I believed in reincarnation.

2. Support the collateral areas. The government needs to invest more
in the Territorial Army; and even refraining from present efforts to
strangle target shooting would help.

3. Be distinctly more robust when dealing with the anti-military.
Instead of just shrugging, tell them that the majority of people in the
country do not want to be victims of their lamentable judgement - a weak
military capability has NEVER served ANY population in recorded history.

Tirade number two over :-)

Cheers,

Dave

(Personal political position - an Extreme Centralist...)

--
Dave Eadsforth

"Dave" == Dave Eadsforth writes:

/.. bloody good post snipped../

Dave Tirade number two over :-)

Damn Dave, can you do that at will? I darned well agree with you there
on all points.
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:42:10 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
wrote:


I mentioned Earnest Bevin a couple of posts ago. He
was instrumental in mobilising the labour movement against the threat of
Nazism prior to WWII and as Foreign Secretary was primarily responsible
for showing the need for Britain having its own nuclear weapons. But he
was no warmonger - just a perceptive man who knew what had to be done to
maintain peace.


Ernie Bevin was a real honest to goodness patriot. Someone who knew what
statist dictatorships looked like and wasnt afraid to condemn and their
agents for what they were.

He was destested on the Left for doing so.


greg

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

In article , Gernot Hassenpflug
writes
"Dave" == Dave Eadsforth writes:

/.. bloody good post snipped../

Dave Tirade number two over :-)

Damn Dave, can you do that at will? I darned well agree with you there
on all points.

Thanks, Gernot - I only wax lyrical when I get wound up about a
situation - but it happens more and more these days... :-(

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

In article , Greg Hennessy
writes
On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:42:10 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
wrote:


I mentioned Earnest Bevin a couple of posts ago. He
was instrumental in mobilising the labour movement against the threat of
Nazism prior to WWII and as Foreign Secretary was primarily responsible
for showing the need for Britain having its own nuclear weapons. But he
was no warmonger - just a perceptive man who knew what had to be done to
maintain peace.


Ernie Bevin was a real honest to goodness patriot. Someone who knew what
statist dictatorships looked like and wasnt afraid to condemn and their
agents for what they were.

One of my few genuine heroes...

He was destested on the Left for doing so.

A good qualification for anyone to achieve :-)

greg

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

In message , Dave Eadsforth
writes
Tirade number two over :-)

applause

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:42:10 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
wrote:

I agree with most of what you said except...

3. Be distinctly more robust when dealing with the anti-military.
Instead of just shrugging, tell them that the majority of people in the
country do not want to be victims of their lamentable judgement - a weak
military capability has NEVER served ANY population in recorded history.

Hasn't bothered Iceland in the last thousand years or so, no is New
Zealand at much risk despite their woeful military. On the flip side,
having a military too strong has damaged dozens of countries around
the world, whether from sheer overinvestment crippling the economy
(USSR in times past, NK now), the miltary having too much political
power, either through constitutional means or via coup d'etat
(Pakistan, Liberia, etc ad nauseum), or simply soldiers terrorising
their own civilians at the leaders behest (Iraq, Sudan etc etc etc)

Tirade number two over :-)

A worthwhile tirade. I for one wished more election campaigns
addressed more than schoolsandhospitals, and included things like
foreign policy and defence.

(Personal political position - an Extreme Centralist...)

I'm slightly to the middle of that position myself :-)

Peter Kemp