Cutting the UK armed forces

The Powers That Be appear to have decided to cut thew British armed
forces, if this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,1066448,00.html

is to be believed. The cuts appear to be GBP 1 billion, mostly in
equipment procurement, over the next decade (the article makes it
unclear if that's for all 3 services, or GBP 1 bn for each
service).

The army looks likely to lose body armpour for infantry, and
"battlefield internet" network capability; the air force might see
reductions in the number of Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft ordered;
the navy might lose one or both of its new aircraft carriers, and
the order for Type 43 destroyers reduced from 12 to 8.

Are these cuts wise? If you were making the cuts, what would you
cut?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
The Powers That Be appear to have decided to cut thew British armed
forces, if this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,1066448,00.html

is to be believed. The cuts appear to be GBP 1 billion, mostly in
equipment procurement, over the next decade (the article makes it
unclear if that's for all 3 services, or GBP 1 bn for each
service).

The army looks likely to lose body armpour for infantry, and
"battlefield internet" network capability; the air force might see
reductions in the number of Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft ordered;
the navy might lose one or both of its new aircraft carriers, and
the order for Type 43 destroyers reduced from 12 to 8.

Are these cuts wise? If you were making the cuts, what would you
cut?

I wouldn't worry; there'll be a new PM along soon who'll undoubtedly want to
reverse whatever's done now in any case.

John

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 01:42:57 +0100, John Mullen wrote:
Are these cuts wise? If you were making the cuts, what would you
cut?

I wouldn't worry; there'll be a new PM along soon who'll undoubtedly want to
reverse whatever's done now in any case.

The worst thing that could happen to Blair is the Hutton inquiry
calls him a liar and blames him for Kelly's death. If so, Brown
would be the most likely person to take over. Since the cuts are
probablt treasury-led, it's likely they'd continue.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

Are these cuts wise? If you were making the cuts, what would you
cut?

blair's throat.

wrote in message
...
Are these cuts wise? If you were making the cuts, what would you
cut?

blair's throat.

Or the strings hanging him from GWB's hand? :^)

Si

"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
Are these cuts wise? If you were making the cuts, what would you
cut?

blair's throat.

Or the strings hanging him from GWB's hand? :^)

Now, now, that's not nice. He has just had a heart attack you know. Brown
must be chuckling...

John

In article , phil hunt
wrote:

Are these cuts wise? If you were making the cuts, what would you
cut?

1. Ministers. Do we really need three in a Department this size?


Aetherem Vincere
Matt
--
To err is human
To forgive is not
Air Force Policy

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:05:07 +0100, Matt Clonfero ] wrote:
In article , phil hunt
wrote:

Are these cuts wise? If you were making the cuts, what would you
cut?

1. Ministers. Do we really need three in a Department this size?

Probably not, but would it really save much money to cut some of
them?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).