British generals, admirals and air marshals have the habit of rather shooting themselves in the foot. Every senior military officer, as soon as he or she retires, goes on record in the media saying that the military couldn't defend Britain from a major attack because of defence cuts.

Yes, it is true that the British military has been cut to the bone but some of the blame lies with the top brass. Every major equipment programme for the British armed services is over budget and in some cases the equipment doesn't function. A classic example is the Royal Navy's new fleet of Type 45 destroyers which were accepted into service even though the ships suffer from severe propulsion problems. So why were they accepted into the fleet if they do not function properly? If you buy a new car and it doesn't work you take it back to the dealership at once, don´t you?

And staying with the Royal Navy, it is not exactly a good idea to allow officers under training to take command of one-billion-pound submarines because accidents happen, like the collision off Gibraltar earlier this year.

British troops have been sent to war across the globe over the last three decades without the proper equipment. The Falklands War was a classic example: British warships were incapable of tackling the threat from Exocet type surface-to-surface missiles. During the First Gulf War the Royal Air Force lost a number of its Tornado aircraft because they proved easy pretty for Iraqi air defences. The British army was so badly equipped during the Iraq war that rifles didn't even function.

Yes, successive government cuts have badly hit the British military, but I do believe that the top brass should share some of the blame for faulty equipment. If British troops are not equipped for the tasks, then military commanders should be honest and tell the government the truth. An army is only as good as its commander.

Comments

To be able to write a comment, you have to be registered and be logged in.

* Mandatory fields

Steve Riches / Hace over 5 years

I sincerely apologise for the prunting errors below which are due to fat fingers on a tiny screen. There is no edit facility but I think you'll get the gist of it.

+1-

Steve Riches / Hace over 5 years

Jason you have the solution - if our admirals, generals and air marshals really are shooting themselves in the foot they beed to stop right now to save bullets and hospital bills! Seriously though, if a country loses the ability to properly defend itself there will come a time when anotger country will take what they have by force: that's human nature as displayed violently through tge centuries. If good politics and systems of sharing the world's resources fairly can be achieved then people rarely wish to fight BUT sometimes events out of your control lead to others wanting to take what you have, however fairly it may have been earned. When that happens you must figgt effectively to preserve what you value. It is therefore vital to have the weapons and systems that do the job and our economy must be used to preserve that advantage. Essentially Jason I therefore agree with you and the democracy that gets the balance right will prevail. Bad men DO often win and we need to keep that focus.

+1-

S. / Hace over 5 years

The high ranking Commanders, have investments in Company's with Government Contracts. Technically they are not allowed to speak out during their time in service. Which is a an anomaly for them, and their invested interests. I spent 25 years in the RAF. I left , when the defence cuts put nearly everything in jeopardy. Cutting in this way, is a fase economy, and puts safety at great risk. The " TYPHOON " was 10 years obsolescent when it went into service, at £159 million pounds each. It still had to be modified , when it was of no use to fighting terrorism.

+3-

Mark / Hace over 5 years

Jason, your simplistic and uninformed comments clearly demonstrate that you have no idea about how the UK military operates.

+1-