Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

S09 - Departmental Review from the Ministry of Defence Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    I can assume you that they are accurate.

    For instance the resonance or the human eyeball is about 17Hz which has already been calculated. Use of wepons at this range cause halusinations. You don't need the entire bodily resonance just a part of the body which is targetable. The science exists and bodily resonance frequencies are somewhat known. Although my aim is more for the bringing down is buildings without the use of bombs.
    Last I checked hallucinations were non lethal. Further the circumstances where sonic weapons are viable are incredibly limited and the only advantage they might have over bombs is residues, and in the very very long term cost, but in every other way they will likely be greatly inferior

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    1,500 military personnel not 'ground trades' as you call them. There are no numbers for those. The 35,000 will be people in a combative role. Also I never said it was teh Royal aviary force and your hostile tone is unwarented.
    Personnel make up the ground trades ( people who are not pilots work in the ground trades i.e Chefs , HR , RAF Police , Firefighters ) the RAF Have more pilots than planes however there is a shortfall in personnel doing the ground trades ... so more than 1,500 new personnel to do the ground trades are needed
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    1,500 military personnel not 'ground trades' as you call them. There are no numbers for those. The 35,000 will be people in a combative role. Also I never said it was teh Royal aviary force and your hostile tone is unwarented.
    But what are these military personnel doing? Same with the navy. You are saying we will hire more people but aren't actually creating any jobs for them.

    The same goes for all the Army personnel, although there it's more what divisions, regiments etc you envision them being a part of, or at least what combat role, or are we going back to WWI and just having a massive complement of infantry?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Personnel make up the ground trades ( people who are not pilots work in the ground trades i.e Chefs , HR , RAF Police , Firefighters ) the RAF Have more pilots than planes however there is a shortfall in personnel doing the ground trades ... so more than 1,500 new personnel to do the ground trades are needed
    I would also point out that it isn't fixed at 1,500 but the increase is shared with the navy. Given that it's only one term a small increase is all I could do. To increase the RAF as rapidly as you wanted isn't something which is viable because it also rely on people who are actually good getting in.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But what are these military personnel doing? Same with the navy. You are saying we will hire more people but aren't actually creating any jobs for them.

    The same goes for all the Army personnel, although there it's more what divisions, regiments etc you envision them being a part of, or at least what combat role, or are we going back to WWI and just having a massive complement of infantry?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They will be deployed on the fauklands, in Syria for our new ground invasion, on our new aircraft carriers, in our new anti-maritime planes. We have the places for them.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    This is well-written. However, I disagree ideologically with 90% of it, so nay. Also, "seek for a solution" should be "seek a solution".
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    They will be deployed on the fauklands, in Syria for our new ground invasion, on our new aircraft carriers, in our new anti-maritime planes. We have the places for them.
    Except you haven't. You claim to be increasing the size of the Army by 15,000. To increase the "fauklands" garrison to 2000 takes 650. There are no new ships being built in this review so there is nowhere for the new naval personnel, and the new aircraft only take up a few hundred personnel. As for the ground invasion, you do realise we already have two divisions to do that? So I shall ask again. Where are the new personnel going.

    Also, now I'm home, I'll go through and sort out the costing.

    I'll add the usual funny funding that is inconsistent with the way things work. That £2bn you have set aside "in case it's needed" would not be issued, you will get that as and when it is needed if the Treasury believe you do actually need it.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except you haven't. You claim to be increasing the size of the Army by 15,000. To increase the "fauklands" garrison to 2000 takes 650. There are no new ships being built in this review so there is nowhere for the new naval personnel, and the new aircraft only take up a few hundred personnel. As for the ground invasion, you do realise we already have two divisions to do that? So I shall ask again. Where are the new personnel going.

    Also, now I'm home, I'll go through and sort out the costing.
    There are 2 new ships mentioned in the British overseas defence not included in the costing as they are already paid for/being paid for in part of the current budget.

    Well I have provided the links. Also, you might be aware of the people being sent to patrols the EU boarder? Plus you have to remember the fact that personnel are on rotation. This isn't an increase in total active forces but forces on rotation.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    There are 2 new ships mentioned in the British overseas defence not included in the costing as they are already paid for/being paid for in part of the current budget.

    Well I have provided the links. Also, you might be aware of the people being sent to patrols the EU boarder? Plus you have to remember the fact that personnel are on rotation. This isn't an increase in total active forces but forces on rotation.
    Two ships that already have everything worked out for, so again, no new ships that need new crews. Further consider that the HMS Queen Elizabeth isn't to be commissioned until next year the crew may well already be in the system, and as for HMS Prince of Wales, not until 2020, so probably aren't going to be recruited for a bit anyway.

    And I am aware that the figure is for those on Rotation, but you are still yet to tell us WHAT THEY ARE DOING when they are on active service in the field. I can only assume that they are going to be pure infantymen. I'm sure the soldiers will be chuffed that their CAS, artillery, armour support, APCs etc are all in effect being cut. So, third time, what are the new soldiers going to be doing?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Who are you and what have you done with Aph?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    With a look through the costing, what you are wanting to do is recruit 15,000 recruits with no officers and no promotions given the increased troop numbers. You want all new RAF personnel to be pilots with prior military training, all naval personnel to be the lowest pay tier Able Seaman the entire time, again with no officers and no support personnel such as engineers. You're throwing in disproportionately high personnel equipment and inventory spending. You're for some reason increasing depreciation and inventory write offs.

    I'll also point out that the government never decided to dry dock any trident subs because the last shambles of a statement was witdrawn
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Two ships that already have everything worked out for, so again, no new ships that need new crews. Further consider that the HMS Queen Elizabeth isn't to be commissioned until next year the crew may well already be in the system, and as for HMS Prince of Wales, not until 2020, so probably aren't going to be recruited for a bit anyway.

    And I am aware that the figure is for those on Rotation, but you are still yet to tell us WHAT THEY ARE DOING when they are on active service in the field. I can only assume that they are going to be pure infantymen. I'm sure the soldiers will be chuffed that their CAS, artillery, armour support, APCs etc are all in effect being cut. So, third time, what are the new soldiers going to be doing?
    part of what they will be doing is taking the place of the reduced number of reserves recruited each year.

    Then we have dedicated 1.200 troops in this statement. Rotations will last 6 months in general and for all new rotations we will be using a a trinary system, so that means 6 months on deployment, 1 year at home training and then back. That's 3,600 people. We then have logistical and roles such forth as well as support for ground troops as well as small forces based new ukrain and Japan to aid forces there.

    There is no cut in equipment as the increase takes into account more people.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    Who are you and what have you done with Aph?
    This is the new me. I did a lot of research which changed my veiws on this.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    part of what they will be doing is taking the place of the reduced number of reserves recruited each year.

    Then we have dedicated 1.200 troops in this statement. Rotations will last 6 months in general and for all new rotations we will be using a a trinary system, so that means 6 months on deployment, 1 year at home training and then back. That's 3,600 people. We then have logistical and roles such forth as well as support for ground troops as well as small forces based new ukrain and Japan to aid forces there.

    There is no cut in equipment as the increase takes into account more people.
    You have dedicated to the redeployment of 1300 troops that are otherwise sat around in their barracks, and deploying a supercarrier to the Falklands is simply unnecessary unless there is a real threat from Argentina, which there isn't.

    And you have a disproportionate increase. The total personnel increase is in the region of 10% over 4 years acorss all services, whilst you have an increase of nearly 25% this year alone for personnel equipment and nearly 40% for inventory.

    And there is an effective cut, you are over those 4 years increasing the size of the army by nearly 20%. There is no increase in Apaches and the likes so the CAS has to either be spread across more men, or there are a lot of men wasting their times sat in their FoB. No new tanks, no more artillery, so again, the armour and artillery support needs spreading across more men or there are to be a lot of men sat in their FoB doing nothing. No new APCs, so either you have longer deployment times in the field, more men on patrol with poor levels of protection or, you guessed it, more men sat around in their FoB.

    And is this time number 4 or 5, where are the men going, if it helps here is the structure of the Army as it exists now:
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You have dedicated to the redeployment of 1300 troops that are otherwise sat around in their barracks, and deploying a supercarrier to the Falklands is simply unnecessary unless there is a real threat from Argentina, which there isn't.

    And you have a disproportionate increase. The total personnel increase is in the region of 10% over 4 years acorss all services, whilst you have an increase of nearly 25% this year alone for personnel equipment and nearly 40% for inventory.

    And there is an effective cut, you are over those 4 years increasing the size of the army by nearly 20%. There is no increase in Apaches and the likes so the CAS has to either be spread across more men, or there are a lot of men wasting their times sat in their FoB. No new tanks, no more artillery, so again, the armour and artillery support needs spreading across more men or there are to be a lot of men sat in their FoB doing nothing. No new APCs, so either you have longer deployment times in the field, more men on patrol with poor levels of protection or, you guessed it, more men sat around in their FoB.

    And is this time number 4 or 5, where are the men going, if it helps here is the structure of the Army as it exists now:
    Not just the faklands but the med as well.

    The increase in the equipment fund can pay for tanks if that is what is deemed nessesary. I know I know nothing about military equipment and to pretend any of us have enough knowledge to know exactly what is needed is, in my mind farcical. The money is in the hands of the soldiers so if they decide to buy more tanks or helicopters then they can do that. The increase in infustructure can also fund such wepons of war.

    Lastly, I know you are trying to impress your idol mr Corbyn by opposing everything the government does like him, but you have to understand that there is a limit to the amount of detail and realism you can go into on a student site like this with a limited charecter count and much less information then IRL so sometimes you have to just accept a good thing when it comes your way.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    This is the new me. I did a lot of research which changed my veiws on this.
    So I take it damaging desert fauna through air strikes is no longer a concern?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    So I take it damaging desert fauna through air strikes is no longer a concern?
    Well it would be a tragic loss but not of great concern.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Well it would be a tragic loss but not of great concern.
    You really have changed your tune.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    You really have changed your tune.
    And I assume I'm not the only one with concerns over this

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And I assume I'm not the only one with concerns over this

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nope I do
    1) The Defence costing's are wrong
    2) The Defence secretary is ignoring the fact that not everyone in the RAF Is a Pilot and suddenly 1,500 new personal will fix the shortfall in personal doing the other trades apart from Pilot and engineers
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aph's policies on a roller-coaster. I thought the former set was stupid but it's an even bigger shame that you're prepared to betray your own beliefs only to have this department. Have you thought about how many birds will die during those airstrikes?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 24, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.