The PPrune Comprehensive Spending Review

[Compressorstall]

Since the Comprehensive Spending Review doesn't seem to take much notice of the needs of those on the frontlines and seems to have been carried out on a Friday afternoon by a Civil Servant with no knowledge of the military, perhaps it's time to tell people what we want and need to do our jobs. Think about what you write too since it needs a realistic approach. Also, what don't we need and what would the saving be? This may be like Fantasy Football, but someone might be reading it. People need to realise that the military is an expensive business and war makes it even more so.

So - what's it to be???:eek:

[Roland Pulfrew]

OK I'll start, at the beginning.....

I would, like the flying system to start with a military owned, military operated, military serviced Flying Training system whether that be EFT/BFT/AFT or Grading/BFT/AFT. Based on sufficient airfields so that weather implications are reduced and there is sufficient airspace for all to get what they need. Closing anymore of the current FTUs ISN'T the best start!!!

Next.

[BluntM8]

Less cheapo Carling/Grolsh. More Wobbly/Stella.

The saving would be significant. No more taxi rides into town. My wallet would feel much healthier.

Maybe they could chase up that bus load of nurses which set out in 1963, too?

:E:E:E

[Roland Pulfrew]

Actually. On second thoughts I would like a CAS, CINCAIR and ACAS who would say to the bean counters:

"No. We will not be setting any savings targets this year, or next year, or again. There is nothing left". "Oh, we are going to be £56M overspent this FY? Tough. It may have something to do with fighting 2 wars and it is only what the NHS overspend each month so it can't be an issue."

[Archimedes]

As the first phase of the Pprune comprehensive spending review, we should focus on strategic capability.

It is proposed that the capability known as Minister for the Armed Forces, currently delivered under Project AINSWORTH, be withdrawn from use and not replaced.

AINSWORTH's somewhat limited intellectual capabilities have been a matter of concern for some time, but the recent combat performance when ambushed by Newsnight forces under Jeremy Paxman ('Which part of the question don't you understand, Minister?') illustrated that this piece of equipment is obsolete and unsuited for the current operating environment; maintaining it is merely a burden on the services who will hardly notice its departure.

The second capability area of concern is that known as Sec of State. Under project BROWNE, the government sought to deliver incredulity to the battlespace.

BROWNE provided the notable second order effects of 'earnestness' and 'generally well-meaning but hasn't a scooby about the area he's responsible for'. It became clear that despite much investment, this capability was operating at maximum capacity, exposing its critical vulnerabilities, particularly during Op IPOD when the capability illustrated that BROWNE's @rse from elbow identification programming had been incorrectly set at the factory. Correcting this error would be prohibitively expensive.

Recent electoral developments led to the requirement for project BROWNE to be double-hatted, stretching (but not overstretching, mark you) the capability beyond its limitations, raising further questions about its viability.
It is therefore proposed that a replacement capability be sought with some urgency. Project FOX appears as if it has some promise based on SIGINT and HUMINT sources active in Blackpool last week. Sources suggest that a defence capability might be on offer from project ZIMMER, but ISTAR assests have yet to find any credible evidence of this. FOX appears to be the best option in the medium term, and efforts to procure this should be begin immediately.

The final area of capability that requires urgent attention is that under the auspices of project PRUDENCE, currently in the early months of its released to service under Case Yellow Belly. PRUDENCE, despite attempts to bring a fresh pair of eyes to the problem suffers from several flaws in addition to the fact that 'pair' is an overstatement in the ocular aspect. It has become painfully clear that the programming logic employed to deliver PRUDENCE is fundamentally flawed, and is defaulting to the operating system 'Blair Chancellor 1.0', thus leading to an inability to appreciate that fighting two wars simultaneously requires more investment.

Initial investigations suggest that this system error can only be rectified with the use of Microsoft ELECTION 2007. However, PRUDENCE appears to have the capability to overwrite crucial elements of ELECTION 2007. Therefore, a UOR to obtain ELECTION 2008, currently being rolled out in the United States is underway, with Microsoft providing a unique UK setting to enable the programme to function on JPA terminals. Mr Gates reports that the requirement to use JPA may force the delivery of ELECTION 2009, which while a sub-optimal solution may be the best options.

It is the conclusion of the review that Project PRUDENCE does not provide the defence capability necessary for the United Kingdom in the current strategic environment, and it is recommended that Project CAMERON be employed as soon as possible. It should be noted that CAMERON is an untried option, and procuring this capability will have to be taken at risk.

[r supwoods]

I have seen no evidence that the Presidential Squadron suggested by B'Liar has been shelved ... still, two squadrons of Tonkas for a VIP Airbus 330 seems about right.

[soddim]

Any spending or capability cuts in this pruning will be accompanied by similar reductions in political and international mouthmusic so that force reductions are equated with military task reductions.

[buoy15]

Bin the Civil Serpents, Moist Pratts and Naval/General/Air Rank final pensions schemes for starters
That would remove the algebraic reduction formulae which is used to screw the other ranks pensions which are syphoned off to benefit the spongers, single mothers and the Inland Revenue :p

[Al R]

Roland said:
Actually. On second thoughts I would like a CAS, CINCAIR and ACAS who would say to the bean counters:

"No. We will not be setting any savings targets this year, or next year, or again. There is nothing left". "Oh, we are going to be £56M overspent this FY? Tough. It may have something to do with fighting 2 wars and it is only what the NHS overspend each month so it can't be an issue."


Very nice sentiment. However, whats the chances of that happening? Broone can't even set himself an exit strategy from domestic elections, so what are the chances of him caring about an exit stragegy for 2 major wars in far flung theatres? Do you really think this man, who once commented that he'd 'break the back' of the military really gives a damn?

What is going to be interesting, is to see the response to these latest cuts. CAS has stated his opposition to more cuts, as recently as the other week, and he has been ignored. What he does now will be a test of his mettle. What has become apparant, is that the custodians of the military brand are not up to the job. In many ways, its not their fault.. they don't have the experience or the connections to take on the Civil Service or the g'ment. I'm sure CAS is superb still, in a cockpit, but this isn't his natural battlespace.. I don't care how many courses they attend.. they'll get outflanked everytime by The Establishment.

EWe can't trust the politicians with Defence of the Realm, thats for sure. So who looks after things.. who is there to ensure that Mational Security stays above partisan politik? This g'ment is sublime at fobbing off rsponsibility.. see what they did to the Bank of England and the Education Curriculam and Standards body more recently.

Please, lets have an independant body, with clout, standing up for the troops.

[Jimlad1]

" take on the Civil Service or the g'ment!"

Lets be clear here, we're not talking about the MOD CS - we're talking about the most despised bunch of CS ever - the Treasury. If you think they're bad to us, you should see how they are to some other OGD's!

[South Bound]

How about all the grown-ups sit around a table and agree what it is they want us to do, what we need to do it and then fit it all in to a workable number of bases that are SUITABLY redeveloped for their new use.

I am so fed up with the message 'yessir, we can do that, but only if x,y,z happens first' being changed to 'yessir, no problems'. I am all for us being efficient, but we must invest something if we are to make all these changes work - 'leadership' is abused by the military to make up for the inadequacies of funding and realism...

[BluntM8]

I think the problem is - or at least appears to be - that the cutbacks and drawdowns are coming thick and fast with no clear impression of what the desired endstate will be. From the 'shop floor' it all seems very unstructured and reactionary.

I agree with the above comment - the grown ups ought to get together and formulate a plan for the size, shape and disposition of our armed forces in, say, 2015. The plan needs to be backed up with a comprehensive justification for any cuts to be made - and a solid defence for why it isn't any smaller!!!. Then they need to ensure that the plan is given widest possible publicity internally and where appropriate externally.

At the moment, it comes across as if the government are trimming from the armed forces on the basis that savings need to be made and they'll cut cutting away until it starts to hurt! Not good for capability or morale!

[Al R]

Peter Oborne's new book is an almost must read to have an insight into why things happen nowadays, as they do.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2180030,00.html

He's not perfect, not by a long stretch, but he comments neatly on this issue of public bodies morphing and almost merging as one with the political establishment. And its worrying. When Broone bought in Lords Alan West to the Home Office, to become Under Secretary of State for Security, and Ara Darzi to be minister for the NHS, he was epitomising everything that appears to be wrong at the moment with how this country is being run. None of us elected either of them those 2 for key posts (for that matter, we didn't elect Charlie Faulkener either), and they may be ok in the jobs.. but we didn't elect them, and no one thought to give a damn. Neither of them has any mandate whatsoever.. neither has stomped the hustings, and forgive me.. but isn't that what democracy should be about?

But its in our military genepool.. we are conditioned from the outset to say 'yes sir' and only then wonder how in the name of god we can ever achieve such a thing. We want to be the person to achieve the objective and its a true measure of our democracy that we at all times remember that we are subordinate to our political masters. But there has to be a reaestablishment of old values, there has to be. On my FT course, I remember the group needs/mission needs Vs individal needs tewts and I would venture cautiously, that those need to be reexamined by those at the top. The likes of Healey, Heath, Callaghan et al may have been just as crap at handling the economy, but they spoke with the experience of life, and they had fire within them. This lot by contrast, is educated, groomed, coached, urbane and smiles a lot. So combine that with integrity and credibility and in theory at least, we should be able to take on the world.

But the current coiffured crop has to fall back upon, apart from the superficial. Oborne contends that those who seek to guide others in life, will have no experience of it themselves (paradoxically, tha appts of West and Darzi were announcd specifically to counter that, and to further undermine accountability). They've never managed a budget or a large institution or served in the armed forces, but they're happy to despatch troops into battle underfunded, ill equipped and poorly motivated. Its the ultimate arrogance. I'm not an anti establishment freak, I don't believe in any conspiracy theory that I know of and I was incredibly proud and feel so honoured to have served in the RAF Regiment, but I despair more and more of what this country is becoming. I wish more than anything, we had people in positions of public accountability and scrutiny who remember WHO they are really paid to represent. At the present, we are being ignored with an almost criminal indifference by just about anyone who thinks they can get away with it.

[DownloadDog]

I'm still to receive a credible explanation for why Air Ranks should retire on full pay. What have they done that we haven't to deserve such a wopping pay out. Unfortunately, cutting the number of Air Ranks won't solve the problem as they still get paid the same......
:}

[Al R]

I suppose its one of those outdated notions that harks back to an earlier time when war was invariably imminant? You know.. like the times when travel warrants were granted to singlies to get them home, when scalies didn't have to pay food if they went on courses, when administrators administrated, when supply was open at lunchtime and when you needed something, you didn't have to try and convince a chuffing civilian.

[Airborne Aircrew]

You know.. like the times when travel warrants were granted to singlies to get them home, when scalies didn't have to pay food if they went on courses, when administrators administrated, when supply was open at lunchtime and when you needed something, you didn't have to try and convince a chuffing civilian.Ahhh... You're talking about those days when the military was respected by the general populace, many of whom had served in some capacity and therefore understood what it is that is given by those who serve. When they understood what an impressive, nay superlative, organization Her Majesty's Armed Forces really are. How they took men and women from all walks of life and melded them into a functional, cohesive and effective force capable of attaining almost any goal set them regardless of any obstructions.

Rather than a military that has been systematically denigrated and derided by a press that does not like nor care for a military unless it makes for good video or pictures to sell their product. A military that has been systematically undermined and eroded by a bunch of short sighted, self serving cowards most of whom would never give anything of themselves for as little as they reward the current military. A military that lacks the respect of the general populace as a result of the two factors above yet will continue to expect them to fill in for any job that some work dodging union member won't do for their current over-inflated salary and benefits.

I remember the former... Unfortunately, I believe I saw the beginning of the latter too... The very thing that helped put the "Great" in Great Britain is being destroyed by those who would live in the glow of the the name without an inkling of understanding as to what it means... Quite sickening really...

[airborne_artist]

I'm still to receive a credible explanation for why Air Ranks should retire on full pay. What have they done that we haven't to deserve such a wopping pay out. Unfortunately, cutting the number of Air Ranks won't solve the problem as they still get paid the same......

I think you are wrong. Their pensions are calculated differently to Air Cdre and below, but they don't retire on full pay.

[AdanaKebab]

Scrap the Red Arrows ..... (come on bite) :}

[teeteringhead]

I think you are wrong. Their pensions are calculated differently to Air Cdre and below, but they don't retire on full pay.
He is wrong. Air Ranks (2 star and above) retire on half pay. But in practice many more junior officers do.

A full pension (at 55 or after 34 years qualifying service) equates to 48.5% ... of a "representative pay for the rank" which - in all the cases I have looked at - is the top rate.

Ergo, if you're not on the top rate, you'll still get 48.5% of it, which may well be 50% - or higher!! - than what you are actually earning (well, being paid! :ok:) if you are fairly new to the rank.....

....... ain't resettlement briefings fun.......;)

Of course 5-stars I believe in theory never retire, so they get full pay I guess - not many of them left though......

[South Bound]

Nope,the representative level is normally a mid-rate. For example, on AFPAS 75, a Major/Sqn Ldr/Lt Cdr would retire on a percentage of Level 5 (9 levels) Major pay. 28.5 % at 38/16, 48.5 % at 55 I think, something like that anyway....

[Compressorstall]

Gentlemen
Shall I bring the biscuits whilst you all debate your pensions? Wondering whether the Airships are worth their pensions is another thread entirely.
So far we have:
- A defined plan out to 2015.
- Restriction on the roles of Civil Servants.
- Suitably qualified leaders (I don't think we can dictate that unless we're a Junta).
- Defined support, not the emaciated substitute we have now.
- Better usage of the E3 - this could be a whole ISTAR debate.
What's next? Or is this going to degenerate into a whinge-fest on pensions, there are probably only about 1300 threads on that already...

[Roland Pulfrew]

Ignoring the pensions debate I would add:

Upgrade all GR9s to GR9A. Ensure that Typhoon Tranche 3 goes ahead, quickly, with a full AG capability.

The full MRA4 buy, that is the original 21 not the 9/12/15? Replace the R1s with some R5s.

A decent fleet of tankers, ie in the order of 20-25 KC30 type frames, with an AT and VIP capability (we must be one of the few nations in NATO (and for that matter many 3rd world nations) that allows the head of state to fly around on a chartered aircraft rather than be flown by the Air Force). To that end I would add a fleet of VIP helicopters as well as a significant increase in SH (I note that the USAF are about to retire their MH53s from Lakenheath, or is it Mildenhall, so there's 6 worth putting an offer in on).

A decently equipped training system with some element of spare capacity.

Oh and NO MORE SQUADRON OR AIRFIELD CLOSURES!!!

[GeeRam]

"No. We will not be setting any savings targets this year, or next year, or again. There is nothing left". "Oh, we are going to be £56M overspent this FY? Tough. It may have something to do with fighting 2 wars and it is only what the NHS overspend each month so it can't be an issue."

:D:D

Yes indeed.

Oh to see them actually have the balls to say non.........

Not going to happen of course.:ugh:

It's a real pity that someone hasn't been able to persaude a newspaper or pro-mil business front up the cost of some US style 'support our troops not the politicians' style stickers.......:ok:

[Red Line Entry]

There's an awful lot of b@lls being put on this thread about 'protect this' and 'ensure a full buy of that' without any regard to cost. Now, sorry to shock you about the real world gentlemen, but in real terms the defence vote has increased. The trouble is that too much cash is being absorbed by big ticket items such as Typhoon and the 2 carriers.

Perhaps a more mature debate should centre about what we should NOT procure, rather than petty and ill-informed debate about pensions and too many air rank officers.

For my (limited) money:

Bin SAR
Bin Harrier, close Cottesmore
Bin Regt (despite them doing a fantastic job)
Bin F3 (soon as practicable)
Delay Typhoon A-G capability - rely on GR4
Bin the 2 carriers
Bin JSF
Close Lossie - move all to Marham
Close Scampton
Close Brampton
Close Wyton - move all to MOBs or SW England

[Al R]

Sorry Red Line, the words about reaching twang point are from CAS himself.

As a matter of interest, why would you bin the Regt despite them doing a 'fantastic job'? Are you suggesting that the army assumes the role? :oh:

[Roland Pulfrew]

RLE
If you did this:

Bin the 2 carriers


You wouldn't need to do any of the others!!

Don't forget this thread is supposed to be a PPRuNe (fantasy) CSR ie what we want not what we want to get rid of.

And I agree with Al R

why would you bin the Regt despite them doing a 'fantastic job'?

[SirToppamHat]

It's all very well talking about closing stns, but in most cases mentioned here, this means relocating the functions elsewhere ... and THIS COSTS MONEY!

There is no money even for spend to save. You can come up with the best idea in the world for making savings over the next 5 years, but if it costs money now, forget it.

As for moving the CRC at Scampton to Boulmer, it's not like moving house. The number of comms links for a CRC is phenomenal and the cost of moving it any time before it is replaced under Project EMPEROR :ugh: doesn't bare thinking about. The safety case (and govt policy in the current climate) requires that the existing system (UCCS) has 2 sites for redundancy.

As for the Reds moving to Leeming, as mentioned earlier, the Police are going to have a 'mare (as are we all) if they even think about displaying over the A1. In addition, popping down to R313 for displaying will still require the medical, ATC and fire cover to be in place at Scampton, which will need supporting and suddenly the savings are gone. It's not that long since the RAFAT moved back to Scampton from the dreadful mess they found themselves in at Cranwell (they always said it wouldn't work) - it would be nice to think that lesson had already been learned.

STH

[nigegilb]

The £3Billion revamp of MoD complete with fancy chairs should ensure that MoD CS and their Mil counterparts are nicely cushioned from the real world for many years to come. Why debate about closng this station or that station when the ever bloated MoD CS is being paid £millions in tax free handouts to endure a tour in Kabul or just hide away in MoD main building? When are they ever reduced in number? CAS is talking about closing down frontline units in a time of war. Now then, why is that exactly?

I believe we are starting to see the end state in our military. A military on its knees. These cuts are being proposed without a defence review, without sound reasoning or logic. It may already be too late, but is there no line in the sand beyond which Torpy will not go, or is he going to carry on selling out to a mendacious govt intent on ripping the heart out of a once great institution.?

[tucumseh]

I'd be wary of swallowing the mantra that the defence budget has seen a real increase. You must compare like with like. The ever escalating PFI payments will, in years to come, consume a greater percentage of the budget, leaving less and less real money to spend in real time.

Nor have the budget "increases" kept pace with defence industry costs, which must include a hefty R&D element to keep pace with the technological aspirations of the military. Or else, we get sold a 20 year old pup every time. Come to think of it.....BOWMAN.


Nige, you mention Main Building. I understand a large consultancy is currently assessing how many posts can be cut from that ivory tower. Let's face it, if the Government won't let us buy capability, what have DEC got to do all day? Perhaps the chairs will appear at a local boot sale. They do say they're comfy though. On the other hand, they may keep them for the consultants (i.e. the staff they're about to get rid of).

[Occasional Aviator]

How about getting rid of the regimental system and saving money on hats, belts, lanyards etc?

[HILF]

My God!!

Have the RAF now instituted a (regi) mental system - they'll be having traditions next!

HILF

;)

[BluntM8]

How crucial is it to have two new carriers? Could we achieve the task with just one, and would the saving have significant impact? Is the contract too far gone to halve the purchase?

[OCCWMF]

I notice that with every conflict that we involve ourselves in we endure an initial period of internal strife, dead wood clearing and restructuring. They are usually necessary since we are organised around the last set of lessons learned.

Those enjoying promotion during wartime are often the ones who demonstrate, against the enemy, leadership, ingenuity and a powerful ability to influence people and events around them. They continue to be promoted following the conflict ensuring a golden period for the forces during which their skills are brought to bear on the service itself.

Then, between major conflicts, the military becomes a domesticated beast. It's leaders can no longer be selected for their valour on the fields of battle and performance against the enemy, but must be assessed on how well they come off in debriefs, their personal polish and secondary duties performance (Oh look old boy - this chap was PMC for a year, that'll see off the hordes). They find that they can play the system to gain position and become maybe, then yes, men, indoctrinated by their own desire for personal success. The same desire that in times of conflict may have led them to demonstrate great leadership (not necessarily altruistic in origin) but by the gradual drawing of teeth we become less able to resist the stealing of our beans and thus our own worst enemy. All this while the original leaders are gradually spat out at the far end and replaced. It does not happen over night and is certainly not true of all who are promoted but the insidious nature of the change makes it almost imperceptible.

As a new conflict hots up we must wait for those with the experience and fire to filter upwards and begin to challenge the hand that feeds ever less, if necessary giving a gentle nip to remind it of the covenant it entered and the grand promises it made last time it called and the forces delivered.

And those of us that type here (all with the blessing of the Denver Gay Mens Choir aka DGMC) should remember how frustrating we found it at the bottom of the pile and what we wished for while we were down there. Any thing less is selling ourselves out.

Bugger. Pompous switch to off.

So what I'm saying is that what I want costs nowt - that we take these lessons and never get distracted from what matters. We need to be realistic with our expectations but not subjugate our principles to our desire for personal or service gain. If you can't make something happen that should, then explain why to those it will affect. I hate feeling in the dark and would make (almost) every effort if someone took the time to explain why so many things we deserve ain't possible.

Off to a Mess Comittee meeting now......;)

[Compressorstall]

Combat Leaders?? Will that ever catch on? See you at the Mess Meeting - have you sorted the plan about new cushions for the Ladies Room?

[Not_a_boffin]

BluntM8

Essential, no, no (around £1Bn over five years) and yes (even though not yet signed).

You're falling into the trap that the Treasury (and by extension Fat Gordon) continually sets. Pretend there's an increase (even though as Tucumseh rightly points out it's fairly trivial), promise some big-ticket programmes / vast increase in capability (but don't fully fund it) and then in the margins tell the service chiefs to administer their own cuts.

Tucumseh also points out where the vast majority of the extra dosh goes (and it ain't on programmes), in addition to which I would add significantly increased demand for repair / maintenance of kit and recruitment and retention of people. The current Optempo is storing up even more problems for the future.

The tax take for HMG is predicted to be about £650Bn this year of which the £35Bn or so for Scotland, sorry Defence, is about 5.3%. When we are fighting two wars and in a major recapitalisation programme should an extra £2Bn per year (0.3%) be so hard to find?

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Instead of asking for more toys why we we make what we've got work better?
How about a comms network that actually is one (DII is coming, I agree) but equipped with sufficient bandwidth to meaningfully move data around intra- and inter-Theatre. At the same time make sure we have properly trained personnel to manage the network, authorised to do so rather than having to call back to HW every time RAFCCIS has a snag.... This is not a slight on TCW and the comms peeps BTW
How about equipping ALL of the ISTAR assets with datalinks, networking up the groundstations and making the products available to everyone, across the network as a 'on demand' service? Saves having to fly the target again tomorrow, fellas.
How about gently pushing the DSSO and accreditors to one side and telling them they've hampered operations for long enough and that we're going to do things more efficiently from here on in? (Anyone who has to 'impex' anything will understand that one).
Increase numbers of personnel in key high-demand-on-ops ground trades i.e chefs, MT, int, and so on.
Reduce numbers of unnecessary posts at each EAW - FS Discip? DAG? PTIs on ops?
Just my 2p for starters.
SBG

[Da4orce]

Captain Darling has pulled a rabbit out of the hat and found some new money. Everything is going to be okay !!!



The 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review (2007 CSR) continues the longest period of sustained real increases in Ministry of Defence (MoD) expenditure in almost three decades by providing for 1.5 per cent average annual real growth over the three years to 2010-11. This increase in funding, together with value for money reforms generating annual net cash-releasing savings of £2.7 billion by 2010-11, enables the MoD to:


• enhance conventional capability across the Armed Forces including two
new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, protected vehicles for the Army, and further Air Transport capability for the RAF;

• fund the renewal of Britain’s nuclear deterrent while ensuring that this


does not come at the expense of the conventional capability our Armed Forces need; and

• invest £550 million in new and refurbished accommodation for


servicemen and women and their families, drawing on anticipated receipts from the sale of Chelsea barracks.
In addition to the planned expenditure accounted for in this three-year settlement, the Government will continue to meet the additional costs of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere from the Reserves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/09_10_07_pbr_report.pdf

[Al R]

Didn't he announce new aircraft carriers just the other month? And hard vehicles.. and refurbed digs.. and better AT? And he's going to do it all again? Oh, the joy!!

Quick, everyone out of my way! The ballot, the ballot, where can I make my mark for Labour?

[Roland Pulfrew]

And I note that one of the head honchos from RUSI rubbished the announcement as "still not enough" on the BBC News at 6PM! :D I won't hold my breath that this will improve the situation - I doubt whether it will even relieve the pressure on PR08 :ugh:

[Compressorstall]

Even if the money isn't enough, perhaps we might speak some sense! Eg - if we can't bring all flying training under the military again - which bits have to be under the military? What do we need most - new aircraft/weapons or more spares?

Keep 'em coming!

[Al R]

This needs to be read in context.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-10-09a.197.0&s=Royal+Air+Force#g265.1

Of what exactly I don't know. Useful to read bit by bit though. Scroll to the top and start from there.

[tucumseh]

First and foremost, in a debate about Defence Procurement (sic), where was the Minister responsible for procurement?

It must crush the soul to have to sit and listen to this drivel. Even reading it, you almost scream at the screen "Ask the right question you prat" and "Answer the question you lying toad".

Jobsworth is an idiot. He clearly doesn't understand the subject, and those who brief him seem just as bad. Liam Fox spoke well, and seems to have a breadth and depth of understanding. His excellent reply was spoiled by the idiotic interruption FROM HIS OWN COLLEAGUE, Winterton; his momentum was lost by having to explain to her why you can't just "rent" a battlefield helicopter. (She later redeemed herself by highlighting waste of money. Not surprisingly, the Government didn't answer her, mainly because deliberate waste seems to be policy - at least those who commit it are robustly defended by both MoD and Ministers - so no doubt thought they didn't need to explain further). Not as bad as the prat who started sounding off about British lamb.

Jobsworth mentioned eight Chinook Mk3s, omitting a quite important point. They were provisioned yonks ago by the Tories and, despite very knowledgeable people stating precisely what would go wrong - well, you know the rest. How on earth did he expect to get away with an inference that this was "new" capability.

Nick Harvey (LD) spoke well on UORs. He seemed to understand the medium and long term effects - they often offset the short term benefit due to the Treasury demand that in service support (70%+ of through life costs) is funded from existing budgets. He is right - most UORs should be core. One man's UOR is another's total incompetence and lack of foresight. The UOR system is necessary, but when it becomes the norm the "proper" system has failed.

Crispin Blunt (C) spoke well on FRES, but didn't mention heavy lift - the two are inextricably linked. Ben Wallace (C) did mention it, and pointed out the disconnect between FRES and A400 specs. He also pushed for a decision on Blue Force Tracker. Given MoD policy on friendly fire risk (i.e. it's ok) I wish him luck.

Willie Rennie (LD) hit the nail on the head -re the Defence Industrial Strategy (and the complementary Defence Technology Strategy). Neither looks forward and nowhere do they explain HOW they will be implemented. We still have rafts of people in Main Building trying to work out solutions to a wide range of problems - when many of the solutions are already in service. Douglas Carswell (C) makes even better points on DIS but went too far in his support of the "Off the Shelf solves everything" lobby. It doesn't.

Finally, Twigg will never twig what's going on. In response to a direct question about Future Rotorcraft Capability, he spoke about FRES. Twit.