Tories Want To Slash MoD Costs By 25%

[mary_hinge]

Tories Want To Slash Ministry Of Defence Costs By 25% | Politics | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Tories-Want-To-Slash-Ministry-Of-Defence-Costs-By-25/Article/200910215401985?lpos=Politics_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15401985_Tories_Want_To_Slash_Ministry_Of_Defenc e_Costs_By_25%25)

[Metman]

suspect a number of the MoD agencies and trading funds might be in the firing line.... like one in my username for example...

[8-15fromOdium]

So there is going to be a review and there will be a cut of 25%.

Sounds like yet another case of 'Here's the answer go and find the question'.

[Chugalug2]

Is this is why the Conservatives have recruited Dannat, rather than him becoming an armchair General to mastermind the Afghan Campaign? The MOD needs tearing apart and rebuilding, with a great deal of it destined for landfill. Mountbatten's monster must be slain and a St George is needed for the job. Perhaps "Dragon slayer" on his CV swung the deal?

[minigundiplomat]

Sounds like the impending pain is reserved for the MOD, civilians and supporting elements.

A bit of a pity, as some of these elements do a great job that will not be apparent on a balance sheet.

A further pity if large swathes of the flying prevention branch are left untouched purely because they wear a uniform.

Developments in the military over recent years have mirrored the government. We now have 'large government' in the form of bloated HQ's adding numerous extra layers of bureaucracy.

Many of the personnel working in these HQ's are decent people, they would just be better employed out in the real world, rather than bunkered up in some HQ.

I offer JHC as an example. How many pilots are employed there?

Let's thin out the HQ's a bit, making them flatter and leaner, release more people do actually do the job we trained them to do, whilst removing the suffocating levels of bureaucracy and micromanagement that are currently dragging us down.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Well they could start by doing a survey of just how many clocks are on RAF stations as ESGs seem to issue a hell of a lot of AA batteries 'for clocks'.

;)

[CirrusF]

Well they could start by doing a survey of just how many clocks are on RAF stations as ESGs seem to issue a hell of a lot of AA batteries 'for clocks'.



That would be just the job for, say, a Wing Commander with only a few years to retirement, and a small sub-department :D

[Dengue_Dude]

It's just more political rhetoric. Half the reason there are so many 'civilians' is that they're doing a lot of the jobs that used to be done by light blue, dark blue and khaki uniforms.

If it were that simple, it would have been done by now. One day the politicians might wake up and realise that we're just a little island off the NW coast of Europe and act accordingly - that'd cut a lot of costs. Falklands, independent nuclear deterrent etc etc

Not holding my breath though. I sympathise for those likely to be affected by yet another round of uncertainty.

[Arclite01]

Xbox 360 clocks ?

Arc

[Runaway Gun]

25% - is that all? I could have sworn we've been cut back my more than that by now....

[larssnowpharter]

The MOD needs tearing apart and rebuilding, with a great deal of it destined for landfill

There is a lot of truth in that.


Cut the tail off the monster.

[Tigwas]

I think we need to get real here. You cannot cut 25% of support (civilian) staff without cutting a role or two. Left of arc is that everyone is a soldier - no Navy or Army - clearly ridiculous. However are we going to see a singleCommand HQ - Joint Operational Command - with 4 Groups (I use the term Group as I am more familiar with that structure) Land, Sea, Air and Support. You then ask the serious questions about role and responsibility. Lets keep it simple - If it is an aircraft its RAF (No JHC - big saving) - If it goes by sea its Navy - rest is Army.

Now look at the vulnerable:

Do we need the Royal Marines - after all the last amphibious operation of real significance to us Brits was the Falklands and this was done by the Paras. Big savings here.

Do we need the big Carriers - think not

Do we need big tanks - think not

Do we need JSF - think not.

Do we need Trident - Yes - we need the ultimate big stick. However we could give this role to Aircraft Launched/Submarine Launched Cruise Missiles.

Obviously with all these great ideas (possibly) is the caveat that in turn HMG must recognise that what the military can carry out is significantly reduced and Forign Policy must clearly reflect that.

The serious point here is that 25% WILL mean cuts in role and responsibility changes

Over to you

Tigwas

[minigundiplomat]

Do we need the Royal Marines - after all the last amphibious operation of real significance to us Brits was the Falklands and this was done by the Paras. Big savings here.

Hmmm, selective memory. I seem to recall both being involved.

[airborne_artist]

Do we need the Royal Marines - after all the last amphibious operation of real significance to us Brits was the Falklands and this was done by the Paras. Big savings here.Bolleaux. 3 Cdo Brigade was there from the start.

What's this a picture of? Scotch mist?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/04/14/article-1169911-004392A9000004B0-24_634x421_popup.jpg

[Finnpog]

If I remember correctly, I am fairly sure that 3 Cdo Brigade might have had a tad of an involvement in the San Carlos Water landings.:ugh:

[GPMG]

Ok I'll bite Tigwas.....what the f**k are you smoking?

Which Falklands war did you watch? The ones where the Royal Marines stayed at home or the one where the Royal Marines and the Para's dominated most of the land battles and without whom the Islands would not have been recaptured. Have a bit of a read about the subject and you will find that a lot of the hard ground work and fighting (except for Goose Green) was undertaken by the Corps.

You may also want to read up on what 3Cdo Bde has been doing in Afganistan......I know poor dears, they have been soooo bored.

[Tigwas]

IIRC the initial landings were by the Paras, a role usually reserved for the RM. Of course the RM were there but their role was more conventional that Amphibious Warfare.

But seriously folks, is there not a real question that given the way the world is today can we afford to do this role. If the answer is yes so be it. If it is yes what role are you going to chop - I do seriously believe we will need to give up a role. The point of my post is that I believe that if 25% cuts are to be attainable it will mean a radical re-think. The RM issue gets the debate going. Yes, it is provocative but what suggestion will not be.

Regards to all

Tigwas

[ALM In Waiting]

Without going to off thread, did anyone see the small bit in The Times yesterday about the Tories increasing the tax free op allowance to £4800 for six months away? Seems pretty good if they actually carry it out.....:suspect:

[GPMG]

Tig, you clearly have no idea as to what you are talking about.

If you think that the Royal Marines sit around all day practicing beach landings then I guess that you imagine that the Airborne brigade only practice parachute jumps and nothing else?

If you are going to make boll0x claims to start a discussion then expect to get boll0x back , *.



Taken from various sites:


The British Task Force started to land its troops at San Carlos Bay on May 21st 1982 after receiving the go-ahead from London. Brigadier J H Thompson, Royal Marines (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/royal_marines.htm), led the troops from 3 Commando Brigade. His second in command was Colonel T Seccombe, Royal Marines. Men from 40, 42 and 45 Commando were landed in San Carlos Bay along with men from 2 Para and 3 Para, Parachute Regiment (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/parachute_regiment.htm). The main priorities were to secure the beachhead from attack and land as many men and supplies as was possible. To prevent nearby Argentine forces attacking the beachhead and disrupting it, groups of Special Forces troops were sent out to deal with the known nearest threats.



The 4,000 men of 3 Commando Brigade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Commando_Brigade) were put ashore as follows: 2nd battalion of the Parachute Regiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_Regiment_%28United_Kingdom%29) (2 Para) from the RORO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RORO) ferry Norland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norland_%28ferry%29) and 40 Commando (Royal Marines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marines)) from the amphibious ship HMS Fearless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Fearless_%28L10%29) were landed at San Carlos (Blue Beach), 3 Para from the amphibious ship HMS Intrepid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Intrepid_%28L11%29) were landed at Port San Carlos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_San_Carlos) (Green Beach) and 45 Commando from RFA Stromness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Stromness_%28A344%29) were landed at Ajax Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_Bay) (Red Beach). Notably the waves of 8 LCUs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Utility) and 8 LCVPs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCVP) were led by Major Ewen Southby-Tailyour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewen_Southby-Tailyour) who had commanded the Falklands detachment only a year previously. 42 Commando on the ocean liner SS Canberra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Canberra) was a tactical reserve. Units from the Royal Artillery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Artillery), Royal Engineers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Engineers) etc. and tanks were also put ashore with the landing craft, the Round table class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Table_class_landing_ship_logistics) LSL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Ship_Logistics) and mexeflote (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexeflote&action=edit&redlink=1) barges. Rapier missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier_missile) launchers were carried as underslung loads of Sea Kings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Sea_King) for rapid deployment.

[airborne_artist]

Not forgetting that the SBS had recce'd all those beaches and others weeks beforehand, and of course, at detached company of RM re-took S Georgia some time before the San Carlos landings.

Tigwas - you are on a loser, here I think :ok:

[tucumseh]

Probably more pertinent to remind ourselves that in the immediate aftermath the lack of sufficient troop lift was recognised, and the procurement of over 50 "Commando" Merlins approved to augment the (then very new) Sea King Mk4 fleet.

As we know, this was cancelled by the Tory Government in the early 90s. It also says much about Labour that they have constantly taken the hit on this subject over the last few years and not made political capital out of the above decision. Like MoD, they have too many butterflies that flit in and out of jobs, with no long term strategy or corporate memory. I'm afraid the political colour won't make much difference.

[CirrusF]

Tigwas, if you wanted to start a cost-cutting discussion, you'd be better proposing disbanding the Paras and giving (what is left) of their role entirely to RM as UK lead attack troops and UKSF support.

Firstly, there is no role nowadays for mass insertion of airborne troops by static line parachute. Only 1 Para is now parachute operational - and that is arguably only to maintain some sort of experience for those who eventually pass UKSF selection and are selected for 22 Air Troop. 1 Para's UKSF support role could be taken over by RM.

The RM is already substantially larger than the Parachute regiments combined - approximately four times last time I worked it out - so administratively and culturally it would be easier to merge Paras into RM than vice versa. There is plenty of cost cutting to be made in the support services to the two arms - eg RE, REME, RA all provide services to both the RM and Paras. RN provide medical/admin/skypilot services to the RM, Army provide the same services to the paras - lots of duplication therein.

[CirrusF]

I'm afraid the political colour won't make much difference.


Spot on. Anybody who imagines that the services will be better off under the Tories is delusional. The budget shortfalls facing the UK in the short, medium and long-term are very challenging. Unless we are faced with a clear and immediate domestic threat, public support for short-term spending on thinly justified foreign campaigns, and medium and long term spending on expensive high-tech military programs designed to counter improbable threats, is likely to diminish steadily.

[tucumseh]

delusional

While on this subject, I am reminded of CDP's confirmation in December 1999, by letter (still got mine), that it is a routine expectation of ANY project manager to save 30% on the endorsed cost of his project, while delivering ahead of schedule and to a better specification.

Given this has never been applied to any project manager since, I suggest DE&S try enforcing it now - that would account for THEIR contribution to the overall 25%.

[BEagle]

Firstly, there is no role nowadays for mass insertion of airborne troops by static line parachute.

Was there ever?

Arnhem
Suez

:confused:

[romeo bravo]

Why not put something into place to get rid of the people who are in the Redeployment Pool.

Sitting around not being able to do the job you have been doing for years is just boring as hell. Or put it another way, getting paid for doing thing!!

[Finnpog]

Not forgetting the M&AW Cadre at Top Malo House and Naval Party 8901 who opposed the Argentine assault.

If you adopted the 'first in; last out' argument concerning Royal and the Paras (as it is so loved in the FAA vs RAF debate), you'll find that the Duke of York & Albany's Maritime Regiment of Foot showed it's hand in Kronenbourg time (1664), so only a bit of a precendent there.

[jordanpolonijo]

:ok:Example:

If world war breaks out in IRAN and we have to invade to hold up freedom and libert (Im merely playing up to the spin on Iran in the media), how would we do it?

Carrier Strike and Amphibious landings from the Persian Gulf? Surely we need to update our carriers and supplementary Naval FW. Also we would be much better placed if our only troops were UKSF and Royal Marines.

Surely you need to be equipped as a nation for the inevitable especially when you are envied by many and hated by more due to our Governments involvement/alliance with the USA?

[PPRuNe Pop]

This really does make interesting reading.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Tories 'to cut MoD costs by 25%' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8296575.stm)

[Low Flier]

Cutting 25% of the cost(s) of the MoD? Easypeasy:

Bring home and rehabilitate the 9,000 (or whatever) troops from Afghanistan.

Bring home and rehabilitate the 20,000 (or whatever) troops from Germany.

Chop the Blaircraft carriers.

Chop JSF.

Chop V-boat replacements.

Flog half the 'phoon fleet to the Saudis or somesuch mugs.

Seemples.:ouch:

[Wrathmonk]

Jordan

Poor example to support the carrier argument I'm afraid.

Plenty of friendly countries in the region, with lots of space on their airfields, within easy reach of Eye-ran, and who are all terrified at the prospect of a nuclear state next door, and who would offer up host nation facilities at the blink of an eye.

Granted, for an amphibious assault you would need the smaller ships but we've got them in sufficient numbers (I think - granted you can never have enough of anything useful but lets be realistic here;)).

The most useful asset in a conflict with Iran will most likely be the V boats, if for no other reason than to keep any conflict "conventional".

Just my view of course.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

BBC News

He said: "Frederick Duke of York was preparing for the Napoleonic threat between 1792 and 1804 he increased the size of the Army from 50,000 to nearly 500,000 - and he did it with 38 staff at Horse Guards.



Is that intended to demonstrate the Doctor’s total grasp of modern warfare?

Savings might be achievable in the MoD if we didn’t have hordes of eager people trying to hammer 3 Service (although you can probably now call that 2) supply chains into a single, one size fits all, “purple” (with a very rich “red” hue) one.

[Tigwas]

Morning All

AA

It actually depends on what the primary objective was. However, I do concede that my poorly put thoughts got a bashing.:{

GPMG

You are right. Let me put this another way. The FI was a major amphibious operation. During that operation many units who were not AW specialists performed exceedingly well - actually it was brilliantly well. Now move on to today. With that in mind, do we today need a specialist AW Service with its own Rank structure, training, support, Staffing chain etc etc? I use the RM as an example of the size and nature of cuts I belive will have to be made if 25% savings are to be had. The same arguments go for Carriers, Paras, CAS, JSF etc etc.

It is clear from the reaction to my inelegantly put suggestions what future discussions will be like at MOD and during future staff courses as single service interests come to the fore. I surmise that if the 3 Service chiefs cannot present a genuinely purple solution then divide and rule will be the order of the day by the Government of the day. More importantly, the Conservatives will be listening to Dannatt and therefore unless a tri service agreement is reached the solution will have a slightly more brown colouring than the RAF and RN would like.

I guess that over the next few years the expression likely to be used in the corridors of power will be 'Dammit Dannatt':hmm:

Tigwas

[EODFelix]

It appears that our politicalmasters seem to have missed the crucial element here - staff costs form just a minor part of the MoD allocation from HMG (unlike Health, HMRC etc). Most of our budget is tied up in the Equipment Programme (or in supporting its output). Just look as the last set of MoD accounts: removing ALL the MoD civil service (plus Minsters and Special Advisors) will make an 8% budgetary saving (before redundancy payments are factored in). Getting rid of all MoD personnel will make it possible to achieve approx 26-27% savings!!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Wrathmonk, while I would agree that Jordan's argument is flawed, I would suggest that we could not count on 'friendly' countries where we are presently deployed.

They are only 'friendly' where is serves their self-interest. If they do not preceive Iran as a relevant threat then they would not necessarily permit basing and operations from their territory. I believe Turkey was a case in point at one time and Kyrgystan another.

Jordan was wrong because the Gulf is simply to constrained for fleet operations and shipping would be most vulnerable in the Straits of Hormuz. Any carrier strike groups would need to stand well clear in the Arabian Sea and be over 1000 miles from Tehran.

Iran is a wholly different prospect from Iraq and larger than Afghanistan with a much more developed defensive system. This is not to say that it would be an impossible task, simply that the task would be considerably greater than the invasion of Iraq.

Any military adventure would probably have very limited and hopefully be low cost and thus 'affordable'.