RN need £1bn

[serf]

Just seen on the BBC news that the head of the RN is asking publicly for £1bn and 2 carriers.

Get a few helicopters for that amount, what else do we need.

[airborne_artist]

what else do we need

More ships, perhaps? Most navies seem to have them these days, but Gordon seems to have other ideas :ugh:

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

what else do we need.

We need another Nelson, he must be turning in his grave at the thought of a shrinking Navy !

[blodwyn]

We could pay for some ore LEAN consultants :ugh:

[Almost_done]

I say no more a picture paints a thousand words.
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2306/oliverae0.th.png (http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=oliverae0.png)

[LFFC]

Here's the link:

Navy needs extra £1bn - Admiral (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6369655.stm)

So now we know the scale of the funding problem that confronts the forces. This weekend's press should make interesting reading.

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

LFFC,

Seen the link:

A quote from the link:
"As the prime minister has said, if we as a nation are to extend what our Armed Forces can do, the public needs to feel comfortable with the economic choices needed to make that happen," he said.

It is nice to know that the PM feels the country needs to be "comfortable" with these economic choices.

What bugs me is that this infers that the country already feels "comfortable" about "extending what our armed forces can do". I don't remember being given a choice on that one......do you ?........

[serf]

Must be the turn of CAS next, or does the RAF a better share of the budget already and is just content to keep quiet?

[buoy15]

Dear Chancellor of the Exchequer
I'm appalled!
Being a Luddite, you are obviously not aware what it costs to send a gunboat around the world to host cocktail parties and show the flag?
Sod the carriers, what we need is another Royal Yacht with pathetic escorts like the T23, which have paint lockers large enough to carry the cosmetics required for "tiddlying" - and space for beads and bangles to win over the natives
That way, we will be an Empire again
In simple terms, tax every unmarried family and houses with more than 4 windows, 5 pieces of Eight, to cover the cost
Your's sincerely
First Sea Lord Admiral James Cooke RN (Rtd) now deceased

[kaysing]

Well done Sir Jonathon. Having served with him it, does not surprise me that he has stepped up to the plate in this manner. Whether it is an astute strategic move or a statement fuelled by the emotion of frustration, only time will tell, but it is refreshing to see those empowered to lead doing just that. :)

Mr Brown, the consequences of not properly funding ANY of the UKs fighting forces is that people pay with their lives. I hope that the sentiment of 1SLs line isnt lost in the noise. That is, he is merely saying to have an expeditinary policy it must be paid for. He is not just saying, give me two carriers and a million quid. It is not the armed forces merely holding our their hand for more but a reflection of the dire position the British Military is in.:*

[tucumseh]

If you don't ask, you don't get. Let us hope this is a return to the old policy whereby the Services quantified what they needed, and asked. Last time the RN did this, at least on aircraft and their equipment, was 1994. To cost, one must first quantify. Hence, so many projects in financial difficulties.

[Mr C Hinecap]

tucumseh - I sort of agree with you on that point. If the government quantified what it wanted the Armed Forces to do, then perhaps we could define what we needed to carry out the task. Until the highest level can connect capability to actions we're knackered. We're making a Hollywood blockbuster movie with little more than a video camera - and the cast is a bit sparse despite their star status!

[LFFC]

CNS issues a clarification (http://www.modoracle.com/news/detail.h2f?id=12652&refresh=A0F21557-CBDB-4C9D-B6FBA0B7CA77071B)

In a statement issued on 16 February 2007 Admiral Band, who is professional head of the Royal Navy, explained:

"I do not think, and have not said, that the Royal Navy needs a £1bn-a-year extra to do its job or to keep ships at sea. Today’s Royal Navy is funded to do what is asked of it – not least thanks to a current investment programme of £14bn, and the delivery of 28 new ships in the last decade alone.

As the Prime Minister has said, if we as a nation are to extend what our Armed Forces can do, the public needs to feel comfortable with the economic choices needed to make that happen.

"I welcome the way the Prime Minister has started this debate, as I welcome the Government’s commitment to the new aircraft carriers, and my comments today have been aimed at informing this public debate about the long-term funding of our Armed Forces, nothing more.”


But from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6369655.stm):

He summarised his position to journalists by saying: "Give me two carriers and just less than a billion and I will be off your back, a happy boy."

I suppose he could have meant a billion rivets.;)

-----------------------------------------------

Now I'm really confused. The MOD Oracle (http://www.modoracle.com/news/detail.h2f?id=12655&refresh=09653FFA-8781-42B3-A36B1FFE3140C04E)is now claiming that yesterday CNS said the following:
What I want is an additional £1bn for running repairs, fuel, better pay and accommodation.

Looks like he's backtracking really fast!

[A2QFI]

According to today's DT the RN needs an extra £1 billion a year and he has threatened to quite if there are further cuts.
http://tinyurl.com/249l5v

[SirToppamHat]

Please don't let's turn this into an inter-Service slanging match, here or in the meeja. It's interesting that the 1SL feels it is necessary to go public, but I suspect that if CAS or CGS were to do likewise at this point, the meeja would simply see it as just that.

The fact is that all the Armed Services are continually being nibbled to death by the Treasury ducks.

Mr C Hinecap:

If the government quantified what it wanted the Armed Forces to do, then perhaps we could define what we needed to carry out the task.

The way this bunch works, they would bring a huge team of consultants in, none of whom have any experience of the Armed Forces, get them to list the vote-grabbing items and get rid of everything else - or did they already do that? As for us defining what we need, we've never been terribly good at that, or at least never been very good at defending that which we believe we need to carry out the tasks, against those Treasury ducks! Gun for Typhoon anybody?

STH

[Olly O'Leg]

We were banding this one around the other day (speaking from an RAF point-of-view) - the government seems to be partially relying on our age-old "can-do" attitude, making things happen with whatever we've got. Unfortunately, with PVR rates amongst our engineers and guys leaving to fly for the airlines instead of staying on (I know of at least 3 people who are going through the pain of paying their money back so they can jump ship) I think it's going to achieve an unsustainable and unrecoverable situation (probably there already). And that situation will no doubt come as a surprise to the government, who'll shift the blame to our upper echelons and force a few scapegoats out of the issue. No way out, I'm afraid, unless enormous effort (and money, I guess) is made to turn the situation around.

I'm ashamed to admit it, but here I was, 12 years ago, desperate to get in and now not actually worried if I end up leaving. THAT is the attitude that the government need to realise exists across a lot of our forces. :{

[wokkameister]

Cut your PR budget by 25% and voila....the missing £1 Bn. Next!