Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mister Rog]

So sensibly, "rebranding" the Army has been halted

In the pipeline was changing logos and emblems, and the slogan "Be The Best" which General Sir Nick Carter - said market research carried out by the MoD showed the slogan "did not resonate with many of our key audiences". Etc etc

I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer the idea of an army of hard nuts not tree huggers. If someone "does not resonate" with the current branding, it's unlikely that they will ruthlessely kill somebody in the National interest.

Estimated cost so far is in the region of £500K. Bonkers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42469901



 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Why did we stop 'national service'?

[Bigron]

Personally, I was glad to have escaped it, Mister Rog, but I can see how it would have benefitted our disaffected youth nowadays - unless it taught them to be more violent and menacing with greater effect!

Ron.

[STEMO]

Meanwhile, in other army news:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5206490/british-troops-in-afghanistan-to-get-just-1-each-for-christmas-celebrations-by-defence-chiefs/

[Lizzie Zoom]

These are just words of a slogan.

What is more important is that all the military get significantly greater funding, and absolutely no cuts, so that they really can still be the best of the best. 

Historically we have always allowed our military to be wound down to a point were they are proved lacking when the big conflict next occurs. This pattern must be stopped now.  In the past we have just got away with it and been able to quickly re-arm, recruit, and boost our armed forces.  In the 21st century we will be lucky to be given time to do that come "the big one", and it is no good having unservicable equipment and unfit, depleted forces.

This country must wake up now as we are in a period of danger greater than at anytime since the cold war.

[Nick W]

Why did we stop 'national service'?

Because a professional, volunteer military is more likely to be fit for purpose and  more cost effective. Unless you're using national service as a social program to 'reduce' the unemployment figures. Like North Korea for example

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

We could use it to knock some of the woosiness out of the snowflake generation. 

[Mister Rog]

Personally, I was glad to have escaped it, Mister Rog, but I can see how it would have benefitted our disaffected youth nowadays - unless it taught them to be more violent and menacing with greater effect!

Ron.

I wasn't actually making any comment on National Service, just the fact that even The Army is now trying to appear to be more politically correct and "diverse". I also escaped national service by some years, I did seriously look at joining the forces, but I was in my mid 20s and after talking to recruitment people, realistically I was already too old. My view is that the Army, and also the other armed forces, need to be professional, efficent and hard headed. I don't want snowflakes.

[Rods2]

These are just words of a slogan.

What is more important is that all the military get significantly greater funding, and absolutely no cuts, so that they really can still be the best of the best. 

Historically we have always allowed our military to be wound down to a point were they are proved lacking when the big conflict next occurs. This pattern must be stopped now.  In the past we have just got away with it and been able to quickly re-arm, recruit, and boost our armed forces.  In the 21st century we will be lucky to be given time to do that come "the big one", and it is no good having unservicable equipment and unfit, depleted forces.

This country must wake up now as we are in a period of danger greater than at anytime since the cold war.

With the long lead times for equipment is the 21st century you fight with what you've got if a conflict starts in this increasingly dangerous world. Our armed forces are already seriously depleted with all of the services hit but the army particularly so, especially artillery and fighting vehicles. Very few Challenger II tanks are serviceable where the others have been cannibalized to keep a small number operational and don't ask about ammunition levels. Many of our NATO European neighbours are in a much worse state than this with Germany struggling to provide enough broom sticks and black paint for pretend weapons during exercises. Meanwhile Putin has massively increased Russian defense spending and all their armed forces are going through a major modernization program. A Challenger II tank would struggle against one of the latest Russian T90 or the new T14 Armata tanks. The US have found in Syria that their TOW missiles are incapable of penetrating T90 tank armour and the Turkish Leopold IIs have performed badly in Syria due to thin side armour when fighting in restricted spaces in urban combat. Where CaMoron/Gideon made the effective defence cut by rolling Trident's separate budget into the main defense budget as a cut, the Trident replacement cost are going to place a severe drain on the new equipment budget over the next 10 years and are IMO a cut too far and their is talk of this being removed to its own budget again.

For a 1st class professional army, National Service is a disaster where large resources are tied up in training large numbers of people, who don't want to be there and will leave as soon as they are able to.

[Mister Rog]

These are just words of a slogan.

What is more important  . . . . . . etc

With the long lead times for equipment  . . . . . . etc

For a 1st class professional army, National Service  . . . . . etc

Absolutely. All of it . . . .

The Decision: Have an efficient and effective military force . . . . or not, and live with the consequences one way or the other. Don't dither.

[Shackeng]

FWIW, this is the current list of Russian naval ships from Wikipedia. We have how many?

    1 Aircraft carrier
    1 Battlecruiser
    3 Cruisers
    13 Destroyers
    9 Frigates
    78 Corvettes
    19 Landing ship tanks (LST)
    32 Landing craft
    14 Special-purpose ships
    41 Patrol boats
    47 Mine countermeasures vessels
    13 Ballistic missile submarines (SSBN)
    7 Cruise missile submarines (SSGN)
    17 Attack submarines (SSN)
    22 Attack submarines (SSK)
    3 Special-purpose submarine

[Varche]

I wonder what device(s) Russia has been testing for ripping up Transatlantic (and so on) underwater comms cables.

I suspect Scrapyard challenge or Robot Wars teams could come up with something in a week. The Russians have had twenty years to perfect something.

When we escorted a Russian ship away the other day it was in "an area of interest".......

Anyway, we needn't worry. The EU will soon have its army and we will be able to rely on that. Spain has just committed to up its military spending by a huge chunk (but still well short of the 2% NATO commitment)