BBC Article: UK 'must slash defence spending'

[kokpit]

Surprised this hasn't already been reported, it certainly seems to be of gargantuan propotions!

'The UK should consider slashing defence spending by up to £24bn.............'

It rings of sensationalistic reporting, but it does have a certain twang of last one, door and lights... :uhoh:

BBC NEWS | UK | UK 'must slash defence spending' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8125466.stm)

[Widger]

Surprised this hasn't already been reported, it certainly seems to be of gargantuan propotions!

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/221116-future-carrier-108.html

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/111156-defence-public-ignorance-media-cutbacks-20.html
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[kokpit]

I'm well aware of previous posts Widger, none of which I believe amount to a 'total £24bn cut' I believe.

The carriers alone are a 'mere 5 billion', even with Trident added, I fail to understand where the other £19bn of cuts will come from.

Maybe you could enlighten me further?

[NURSE]

scrapping of Challanger MBT(Which will need updating soon)
Scrapping of AS90
Scrapping of MLRS
Scrapping of Raiper
scrapping of HVM
Scrapping of JSF
Scrapping of Puma upgrade
scrapping of A400m
reduction of nimrod
reduction of sentry
retirement of Tornado

[minigundiplomat]

I'm well aware of previous posts Widger, none of which I believe amount to a 'total £24bn cut' I believe.

The carriers alone are a 'mere 5 billion', even with Trident added, I fail to understand where the other £19bn of cuts will come from.

Maybe you could enlighten me further?


Certainly. Carriers + Trident = £24 Billion.

Sorry Navy.

[andyy]

I woudn't be suprised if nurse's list wasn't too far from the truth, In which case all 3 services are going to have to shoot some sacred cows. I'll add the Red Arrows to that list, replace with part time display team from the instructors at Valley, they'll even be flying the 128 for that "modern look".

Also No Carriers, no JSF. At all

[Saintsman]

There's nothing left in Gordon's piggy bank, besides, what do we need armed forces for? :hmm:

[VinRouge]

Ah well, have to pull out of Afghanistan then and live happily ever after... :suspect:

[Ginger Beer]

Prospects of redundencies again ??

[Lima Juliet]

Prospects of redundencies again ??

How does the AFPS75 redundancy scheme work again? - in simple terms please!

LJ

[Ginger Beer]

It all depends on years in and years to go. On the old scheme it was 18 months basic salary tax free plus your usual gratuity/pension for total service. For those on the new scheme it's essentially 12 months tax free instead, plus the normal gratuities and pension etc.

JSP 764 details.

Ginge

[VinRouge]

Ginge, is that TOTAL pension as in time served? OR total pension as in what you originally signed to (12/16/22)?

[Ginger Beer]

I'm pretty sure it's on time served up until your exit date. I think the previous tranches required you to have achieved certain rank groups in trade/branch and a minimum years of sevice to qualify to apply.

There is however, no talk of offering redundencies at the moment. It would be foolish to think that it may not be necessary though because if the cutbacks are half as bad as reported/required, there will be far too many servicemen and women to operate/maintain/support the hardware that is left.

Ginge

[Guzlin Adnams]

I could go on but what the hell.
Go on strike!!!
Tell the politicians to go and fcuk themselves.
Budget down to 2.5 % of GDP already and they have the gall to say that we simply can't afford to defend ourselves. I don't pay my tax to give Europe 40mil a day, five times too much regulation, proceedures and general bull that you wouldn't miss if most of it dissapeared.
I want my kids to be safe in the future!:mad:

[Lima Juliet]

Thanks Ginge

On the old scheme it was 18 months basic salary tax free plus your usual gratuity/pension for total service.

Of which I am - I make that over £200k tax free and a near £20k pension (can I max commute). Can they afford that for lots of similar individuals :ooh: ?

I looked at the JSP and it said that my section is being re-written - I suspect my pleasant surprise is about to take a tumble :(

LJ

[VinRouge]

Grizzlin, all sectors of government spending are going to take a hit, that much is certain. For those hoping for green shoots, I think the 2.4% GDP fall over Q2 should have poured enough weedkiller on them to last till 2011.

We all spent the cash, as a nation we maxed ourselves out. Unfortunately, now its time to pay back all that money that contributed to LAbours 'Economic Miracle'.

[Ginger Beer]

LJ

The military has always been of the opinion that redundency is cheaper in the long run. That's why they had 3 tranches in the 90's/early 2000's.

They are only paying out 12 or 18 months basic pay (tax free) as you were entitled to the rest already.

Moving the goal posts now is not always effective as grandfather rights will normally exist unless you live in Italy :ouch:. As I understand it, the principle change from AFPS 75 to 05 was the drop from 18mths basic pay tax free to just 12 mths.

Tinternet will find you a full unmodified copy of the JSP. If not, pm me and i'll forward a copy of the one I have which details all.

Ginge

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

This was clocked earlier but was fouled up in the CVF hamster wheel. http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/221116-future-carrier-108.html#post5030654

As I see it, the Forces are being invited to destroy themselves. The Army (or is it to be BAF Land Command) have elected to take the lead.

How thankful we should have been for Smuts, Sykes, Henderson and Trenchard

PS

Bugger! just noticed that Widger had already made the association.

[WeekendFlyer]

Have a look at this:

BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | Should defence spending be slashed? (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6666&edition=1&ttl=20090701010502)

From the comments it seems like a good chunk of public opinion is with the military on this - they don't want to see our military capability being cut to the point of being impotent, and they seem to understand the key issues.

Maybe we should all write to our MP and request that Defence is made a key policy issue in the run-up to the next general election - who knows, It could help?

Surely there are plenty of other things that could (should) be cut before the MoD budget had to take a big hit?

I really dislike our currentexcuse for a Government... :mad: :ugh::ugh:

[Herc-u-lease]

I read recently about the biggest spenders on defence worlwide in 2008 (Time, 22 Jun 09). The tabulated results were interesting:

1. USA, $607bn
2. China, $84.9bn
3. France, $65.7bn
4. UK, $65.3bn
5. Russia, $58.6bn
6. Germany, $46.8bn

No big surprise the top five spenders being those with permanent membership of the UN Security Council. My point is that to keep a credible membership of the UN Sec Council, our defence spending has to credible too. I put Germany in there as a means of comparison for the next highest spender - $12bn gap. The UK could afford to take a drop in spending, still remain credible on the global stage but not necessarily as internationally effective as we might like.

A separate argument is whether we are spending our money economically, efficiently and getting effective capability in return.

no account taken for dodgy nations such as Iran, N Korea. Exchange rates too distort these figures. It is only reported spending and a journalistic article - no offence jackonicko et al:ok:

[Arty Fufkin]

My guess is that as the accounts become less balanced, the first thing the UK will be looking for is an exit strategy for Afghanistan ASAP. Lets face it, only ongoing ops and the resultant public opinion are preventing massive cuts in right now. Once we've pulled back from Herrick it will be time to pay back that 9bn a year overspend that we've been borrowing for the last couple of years.

Net result will be another "peace dividend" which will diminish all the armed forces. If you think it will ever go back to how it was, before 2001, then think again. The good old days of Red Flag, Green Flag, Rum Punch, Flying Fish et al are long gone. :{

On that positive note, I'll bid you gooday.

Arty F

PS, other than for international willy waving, do we really need nukes? The only organisations that would seriously contemplate using them against us wouldn't be too concerned with the effects of our potential retaliation would they?

[mlc]

China £84.9 billion?? Yeah..there's fairies at the bottom of my garden too!

[gpn01]

China £84.9 billion?? Yeah..there's fairies at the bottom of my garden too!

Well, the Chinese are well known for making things much cheaper through mass production, low pay, etc. Maybe we could outsource our defences to them? ;-)

[Wader2]

Defence UK 'must slash BBC spending' (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/379660-bbc-article-uk-must-slash-defence-spending.html)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

This has just been released and is, perhaps, pertinent to this Thread.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/001123AD-34F2-4CE5-AF07-C622A99A4F6C/0/defence_framework_20090630.pdf

I can’t refer to paragraph numbers because there aren’t any. Anyway, on Page 2.


What is Defence?

Defence has two high-level outputs, reflecting its roles as a Department of State and the nation’s Armed Forces. These are:

● Defence policy, comprising the definition of the military capability and other
objectives required of Defence to meet the Government’s overall policy aims within
planned resources

● military capability needed to deliver Defence policy and to support wider
Government policy objectives.


So, within planned resources.

Page 4


Other key policy documents relevant to Defence are:

● the 2006 Defence White Paper – The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear
Deterrent, which set out decisions on the UK’s future nuclear deterrent and
reaffirmed the over-arching policy on nuclear weapons as set out in the 2003
Defence White Paper;

● the 2008 Services Personnel Command Paper, which offers a comprehensive
framework to address what more Government could do to demonstrate
commitment to the Armed Forces and gratitude for their service and sacrifice

● the 2008 National Security Strategy – Security in an Interdependent World, and the
2009 update – Security for the Next Generation, which provide the overarching
policy framework for Defence.

Aim and Strategic Objectives

Defence Aim

The Defence Aim sets out the overall purpose of Defence, which is:

● to deliver security for the people of the UK and the Overseas Territories by
defending them, including against terrorism; and to act as a force for good by
strengthening international peace and stability. Delivering this in a world in which
security threats are less certain and change more rapidly than in the last century
requires military forces that are flexible, operationally agile, and able to undertake
expeditionary operations around the world.




It seems an odd time to release this Paper, considering that the previous one was only dated OCT 08.