Sunday Times Story - RAF cuts to bases & Planes (merged)

[Snap Ambush]

From today's (tomorrow's?) Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6917297.ece).

The headline isn't exaggerating either - the proposed cuts are rather deep. Note also that these are allegedly preemptive proposals by CAS and not yet plans to be implemented. Making allowances for the usual journalistic lack of detail, I'm assuming that the early retirement of the Tornado fleet referred to is F3 only. The tediously predicatable comments about giving all of the helicopters to the AAC and disbanding the RAF have already appeared below the article.

What I have started wondering about is if a 31 000 person strong RAF is an opportunity to reduce the rank of future CinC AIRs to AM, supported by two AVMs. It would certainly help reduce talk of excessive numbers of very senior types in a (by then) tiny air force.

[Finnpog]

The linky is here
RAF plans huge cuts in planes and bases - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6917297.ece)

Summary:

Air Force chiefs are preparing to cut 10,000 staff — a quarter of their manpower — and close up to five large air bases.


It also intends to retire the majority of its Harrier and Tornado jets early, leaving it with about 80 fewer aircraft by 2025. The cuts are part of a package prepared for the 2010 annual spending round.

The bases most at risk include RAF Cottesmore in Rutland and RAF Wittering in Cambridgeshire, both of which will close when the Harrier fleet is retired.
One of either RAF Marham in Norfolk or RAF Lossiemouth in Morayshire is under threat because of planned cuts to joint strike fighter numbers. So, too, is RAF Kinloss in Morayshire, with the new Nimrod MRA4 expected to move to RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire.

One plan under consideration would see all RAF fast jet training moving to RAF Valley in Anglesey, leading to the possible closure of RAF Linton-on-Ouse and RAF Leeming, both in North Yorkshire.

Other proposals would see all the RAF’s Merlin helicopters move from RAF Benson in Oxfordshire to a joint RAF/RN station at what is currently Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose in Cornwall.

? Is this proposal a stalking horse like RNs plan to convert one of the CVS to a LPH (which is really a CVS without fixed wing)?

[Grimweasel]

Hmmm, should I be surprised? No. Still, we will get a boat load of future-irrelevant CH47s that won't all fit into Odiham soon. No doubt just in time for public opinion to swing against Afghanistan and a new Government pulling us out.

May as well just go back to the RFC and be done with the RAF. JHC will become the overarching air power expert with loads of troop movers and AH. Who needs Typhoon??

Bet the Chinese or any future adversary are looking on and rubbing their hands with glee whilst dusting off the ICBMs and AAR missiles. What Gordon Brown called the Battle for the Banks is over; The Battle of Britain is just about to begin -except this time there will be no RAF to defend us from the marauders over the Channel :(

[Diablo Rouge]

Hope this is scope for a potential round of redundancies, because I have had enough and could do with a golden exit. 10k personnel is surely a death blow to the RAF as an institution. It seems that bean counters are shuffling peoples lives around as if the subsequent consequences in further deteriating morale and unstable family lives do not matter a hoot. Last one out etc etc ....and apparently in Europe only the UK & Spain remain in recession so optimism that an upbeat economy is short finals (relatively speaking) must be realistic along with the associated improvement in the civilian job market.

[LFFC]

DR

Don't expect a golden exit! Even if they do introduce a redundancy scheme (and I think that's very unlikely), it won't be as generous as it once was. Remember that the redundancy provisions changed on 1st April last year. See the DIN.

2006DIN02-216 (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D9C0F095-1DD4-41B3-9BA1-F14EFEF8F885/0/redundancydin.pdf)

[Mick Smith]

Shortage of space unfortunately leads to cuts in the article to remove the detail. The Tornados are not just the F3s. All the Harriers to go over the next five years and the Tornados to go as well over a longer period allowing for replacement by Tranche 2 & 3 Typhoons. By 2025, all the Tornados, bar nine, oddly to have gone. Interestingly the 2025 figure projects nine Tornados (why keep just nine?), 120 Typhoons (all Tranche 2/3) and 50-60 JSF which are now expected to be all that will be bought, so these proposals assume all fast jets to be under light blue control, which is not likely to be popular with naval chiefs.

[J.A.F.O.]

I’m the last man left in the Air Force.
I’ve an office in MOD
And a copy of Queen’s Regulations
Which only apply to me.
I can post myself to Leuchars
And detach me from there to Kinloss
Or send me on courses to MOTU
Then cancel the lot – I’m the boss.

I’m the last man left in the Air Force,
But the great Parliamentary brains
Omitted, when cancelling people,
To sell off the stations and planes.
The result is my Inventory bulges
With KD and campstools and Quarters.
Plus a signed book of verses by Trenchard
Which I keep for impressing reporters.

I’m the last man left in the Air Force
I suppose you imagine it’s great
To be master of all you survey, but
I tell you it’s difficult, mate.
I inspected three Units last Thursday
As C-in-C (Acting) Strike.
Then I swept half the runway at Laarbruch
And repaired Saxa Vord's station bike.

I’m the last man left in the Air Force
It’s not doing a lot for my health.
Station Sports Days are frankly exhausting
When the Victor Ludorum’s oneself.
On Guest Nights the Mess is so lonely
There are times that I wish I were able
To pass the port to the chap on my left
Without watching it fall off the table.

I’m the last man left in the Air Force
It's quiet – but that apart –
There are plenty worse off, for example,
The only Sea Lord, for a start.
He was called out last Wednesday evening
(Joint Ops with the Army my oath)
But their rowing boat sank in the Channel
Which obliged me to rescue them both.

I’m the last man left in the Air Force
My wife says I'm never at home
When I’m not flying Hercs I'm at Manston
Laying gallons and gallons of foam
Or I’m in my marine craft off Plymouth,
Shooting flares at the crowds on the Ho,
Or I’m Orderly Corporal at Luqa –
It’s an interesting life, but all go!

I’m the last man in the Air Force
I’m ADC to The Queen
I’m Duty Clerk at St Mawgan
I’m the RAF rugby team.
Tomorrow I’m planning a guardroom
And air-testing several planes
The day after that I’m for London
To preach at St Clement Danes.

I’m the last man in the Air Force
And I’m due to go out before long
There's been no talk of any replacement
And I won’t even let me sign on.
I hope to enjoy my retirement
I’ve put up a fairly good show
And I won’t cut myself off entirely
There are always reunions, you know!

Peter Wyton

[Rigga]

2025 eh?

How long is the BAE contract for tonkas?

To follow other older folk - its long away - and its enough to see me out or to not bother anymore.

[Diablo Rouge]

Had a look at the quoted DIN, only to find it out of date regarding 05 TOS and early departures. That said, a years pay and the PA pension & lump sum (which I assume would be unaffected) would be good enough to go.

[Mr C Hinecap]

These will be 'options' from the PR10 work. If you have never been involved in options for these rounds, something like this might be a bit of a shock. Pretty much every option has to be put up for review - no matter how unpleasant they might be - with the numbers next to them. The grown ups can then look to see what is what, and make decisions from there.
I'm quite sure the RN and Army are doing exactly the same with some pretty big calls in their options.

[TheOptimist]

Strictly speaking, under the rules of false representation, should the name be changed to 'RA' instead of 'RAF?' Soon enough our pilots will be dropping aim9's out of C150's.

It's a real shame. Especially given the recent information of MOD bonuses.

[N707ZS]

Why do they keep places like Topcliffe and Church Fenton? Must be some cuts to be made there if they want to save a few quid.

[BEagle]

The last time the RAF was so pitifully small was in the early 1930s. Yet somehow its strength then rose to over a million during World War 2.

In 1952, the RAF had about 171500 personnel to defend a UK population of 52million. Or around 292 people for each RAF member.

By 1957, the RAF rose to a strength of 228000 and even after the disaster of Duncan Sandys infamous 1957 Defence White Paper, the strength in 1958 was around 193000 - but decreasing still.

When I joined the RAF, cuts were underway to reduce the 1968 strength of 121000 down to 97000. Largely by withdrawing from East of Suez....:rolleyes:

Since then it was nothing but cut after cut, coupled with increasing overstretch. If the strength (sic) falls to 30000, with the interests of a UK population of around 62million to defend, each RAF serviceman will need to defend 2066 people, or around 7 times as many as his/her 1952 colleague.

RAF strength should be 171500 x (62/50) to be on a par with 1952 levels - around 213000. And of course the 50 or so RAF stations closed over the last 50 years would need to be reopened.

Of course it'll never happen, thanks to the 'Abominable no-men' of the Treasury, as once they were described in a parliamentary debate on the Air Estimates.

Why doesn't one of the lurking journos on PPRuNe write an article on the scale of the problem, highlighting how ill-equipped the UK now is to defend itself.

[Grimweasel]

Why 9 Tornadoes? Could there be a hidden message here? I'm only guessing but perhaps they have let the cat out of the bag and the Nuclear role is coming back to the RAF??? Subs are very expensive to operate after all and this will be no ordinary defense review -UK PLC is broke!

[NURSE]

Beagle
I think the Plan is that UK will not be threatened by anyone in the forseeable future and the only operations the UKDF will be involved in will be COIN ops in Afghanistan.
So if we have to go to Korea or Down South or Central America we will be stuffed.

[AdanaKebab]

CAS will not be taken seriously with such huge cuts to the RAF unless he cuts the Red Arrows. He has no choice.

Interesting times ahead.

[f4aviation]

Maybe ditching the Arrows is what is needed to get the message across to the greater public - the Reds are the face of the RAF to most, and if they were chopped the national outcry would be vast, as proven by previous rumours of their demise. It may be the only way to get across to the public the perilous state of our Armed Forces.

[vecvechookattack]

I have to agree. If the threat of disbanding the Red Arrows was made public then maybe Joe Public would sit up and listen. But if the RAF Can't afford to have a Formation display team as well as fighter aircraft then what does Joe Public want.....Do they want to be defended from the Squadrons of enemy aircraft swarming over our cities and dropping bombs or do they want to be entertained at an Airshow?

[Mick Smith]

In 1952, the RAF had about 171500 personnel to defend a UK population of 52million. Or around 292 people for each RAF member.

By 1957, the RAF rose to a strength of 228000 and even after the disaster of Duncan Sandys infamous 1957 Defence White Paper, the strength in 1958 was around 193000 - but decreasing still.

When I joined the RAF, cuts were underway to reduce the 1968 strength of 121000 down to 97000. Largely by withdrawing from East of Suez....



To be fair Beagle, the figures in the 1950s and early 1960s were artificially high because of national service.

[Background Noise]

Surprised the 9 Tornados and Red Arrows comments have not been morphed into one rumour!

[BEagle]

But Mick, none of the 121000 RAF servicemen in 1968 were on National Service engagements.

The RAF I joined in 1968 was 4 times the size of the dismal force strength reported in your excellent article - whereas to be on a par today it would need to be 121000 x (54/50) = 131000 strong, not 30000 weak.....:mad:

[Bertie Thruster]

The groundwork surveys for the new Reds hangar at Waddo have just been completed. Building due to start April '10. Rumoured at 30 million total costs.

[Dan Winterland]

Didn't something like this happen during the last great recession in the 1930s? Remind me, what was the result?

[Gainesy]

That's them gone then.
Ah, astute move by Red lead, get Kirsty aboard then any chopping is sexist.:)

Talking of Astute is BAE the only company that can make burning submarines?

[Hugh Spencer]

I agree with Dan. Remember what the situation was prior to WW2 ? I flew in BC then and we certainly wouldn't like to know that this good service is going down the drain. It is essential that the Chiefs of Staff start thinking straight. Keep the RAF in a strong position to deal with situations which can arise to the danger to this country !

[vecvechookattack]

The groundwork surveys for the new Reds hangar at Waddo have just been completed. Building due to start April '10. Rumoured at 30 million total costs.

30 Million quid for a hangar.......!!!!!!????? Good God, What's it made out of?

[TheWizard]

Probably from the material that was earmarked for building an aircraft carrier :}

[Finnpog]

Just to throw my 2d in.

The pubic sector - especially the Military, Police & Health - are frequently deluded by the 'Snake Oil' Salesmen of technology.

By that I mean the propensity to be hypnotised when the newest shiny bit of kit is flashed around accompanied with the sales pitch of "This new shiny thing will make everything all right".

Of course every new shiny thing will be twice as good as the thing it is to replace; needs a fraction of the maintenance; has treble to killing power; can track five times the number of targets at six times the range; puts no aircrew over foreign soil (and therefore no MiA / KiA) & can be run from a caravan in Nevada et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

It's no wonder that the Poli's and Serpents who we have just twirled into paying for the new shiny things start to work out that one Airman can now fight a war over 5 Million square miles of battlespace from their iPod - and hence demand reductions.

I still get oddly nostalgic when remembering the Red Army and it's "Brutal & Basic" approach to warfighting. Sometimes technological advancement is not completely a Utopian dream in itself.

As a country we are financially sodomised.

The Realpolitik is that the Government cannot afford anything and is frightened to hell of the IMF foreclosing on us once again and needs to cut.

I know from my own optional appraisals that every option needs to be considered - if only to be able to rule it out in favour of an alternative, so the 'stalking horse' of these worst case scenarios can be placed into context like that.

I foresee however that the only credible way to save mega bucks whilst keeping an effective warfighting function is to go for a USMC / HM Defence Force management structure and save a heap of stars and support infrastructure.

General, Air & Flag ranks plus their senior middle management voting for reductions? Stuff that - let's screw the private soldiers / sailors & airmen.

[Roadster280]

30M for a shed? That must be one hell of a shed.

Call me old-fashioned, but...

Most of the "ordinary" hangarage in the RAF (as opposed to HASes etc) is of the 1930s C-Type design, which clearly has been fit for purpose for the last 70-80 years.

What is wrong with just pulling out the old drawings and knocking out another copy? It wouldn't even need the blast doors in this case. All it needs is two brick walls, the office/stores building on one side, a steel girder roof and steel panel doors and roof panelling. There are dozens of reference articles, even on the same station!

With a few thousand invested in an architect, the plans could be updated to reflect metric sized everything, modernity in terms of materials, window & door fixtures etc.

I see no reason why this would cost 30 million pounds. Less than 10, I should think.

If the MOD is content to spend money like this, then I can see why there are problems.

[Gainesy]

Hmm, I don't think there is such a thing as a metric brick, I think its some MedEval measurement, like the length of an Aroused Gloster Old Spot's willy or something.

[vecvechookattack]

Most definitely concur with previous posts.

I would like to tender an official bid to build a new hangar for 9 red Hawks and I reckon I could do it for £29,000,000.

That makes my bid 1 Million quid cheaper than the other blokes so therefore do I get the job?


any body got a trowel and a spirit level...?

[BEagle]

Yes, you can have mine for £500000 and I'll even throw in a Gloucester Old Spot (male) for use as a reference dimension. You can eat any bits you don't need for measurement.

[touchpaper]

so.... Option 1
We hand Odiham plus chinook to the AAC along with puma, they support the army 99% of the time so seems sensible that they command them. They can then operate all the aircraft with NCO aircrew thus saving millions in overpaid crews. Merlin to the RN (RM), the SAR helos to the RN (most of the work is over the sea), future Nimrod to the RN (its a maritime a/c is it not). Hand the UAV's to the Royal Artillery (they operate other UAV's) as ours are in support of the Army anyway, all the Army Co-operation Sqns to the Army (as the name suggests) and we will have saved about 30000 jobs.
Or... Option 2
I believe we currently have about 100 star officers (on a pro rata basis) than we did during the war so why dont we chop them and save a mega bundle, we could also have a major review of who/rank commands what, for example why do we have Wg Cdr's in charge of Sqns (surley thats the job of a Sqn Ldr), then we could have Flt Lt in charge of Flts, then you could have Wg Cdr in charge of Wg's (for example the AT Wing (for thats what it will be when lye moves to brize)) which will mean Wg Cdr in charge of Stn's, a Gp Capt then in charge of a group of stations...etc couple this with NCO pilots/aircrew and the RAF can save a fortune and not have to cut any manpower.
Simples
Now lets have a debate!!!

[163627]

Perhaps the nine Tornadoes are for the Reds!!! After all once their current steeds have worn out there'll be nothing left to give them.

[Out Of Trim]

I say chop this Government instead!

We could cut it to say 12 MPs and 1 Prime Minister now or a Military coup perhaps.. :}

Might save a few spongers having to get a job rather than rely on the welfare state.

[A2QFI]

Having been away for a while I can't quite see why moving all fast jet training to Valley would affect Linton and Leeming. Is FJ training done there now?

[8-15fromOdium]

Touchpaper:
They can then operate all the aircraft with NCO aircrew thus saving millions in overpaid crews.
Go and do the sums, I think you will find that your statement is nonsense. As for the Reds, why can't it be an additional duty for the instructors at Valley, indeed if we painted all the Hawks red we could have a couple of display teams.

[Background Noise]

A2QFI - Linton is 'FJ' stream, ie only those streamed FJ go to Tucano.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

SAR helos to the RN (most of the work is over the sea)


I'll restrict myself to taking issue with just one of your points...give SAR to the RN if you like but they will spend about as much of their time over the sea as the Junglies! (ie some but not much).

The days of SAR being mostly maritime are long since gone, due largely to the decimation of the fishing industry; the quantity of overland tasking has also increased with better liaison with civ emergency services and dropping the "Downed aircrew is the primary role" mantra, allowing a wider range of tasking to be undertaken. BTW, it's not that the SAR Force doesn't care about downed aircrew any more, it's just that mil aircraft crashes are relatively few and far between these days; ergo there's no point having a large fleet of helicopters whose main stated prupose is dealing with an eventuality which, fortunately, is increasingly infrequent.

[Wrathmonk]

One of either RAF Marham in Norfolk or RAF Lossiemouth in Morayshire is under threat because of planned cuts to joint strike fighter numbers

Hasn't the decision already been taken for the entire JCA fleet to go to Lossie anyway due to the noise it makes and therefore the only choice left in this case if for RAF Sandringham, sorry Marham, to close. Anyone told HMTQ yet???

[vecvechookattack]

The days of SAR being mostly maritime are long since gone, due largely to the decimation of the fishing industry; the quantity of overland tasking has also increased with better liaison with civ emergency services and dropping the "Downed aircrew is the primary role" mantra, allowing a wider range of tasking to be undertaken.

If that's the case then why don't we put a SAR flight at Shawbury....?

I think you'll find that the majority of SAR jobs could be considered Maritime.

[Bertie Thruster]

it's just that mil aircraft crashes are relatively few and far between these days

3 mil ejections in Lincolnshire in the last 12 months

[vecvechookattack]

Thats his point. 3 ejections in the last 12 months is 1 every 4 months...

Whilst that is still 3 a year too many thankfully its far far less than it used to be.

[willantis]

IF the Times story is correct,and I hope it is not, then it shows a naivety at the top of the RAF which is quite extraordinary, allied with an ignorance of history. In the early '70's, post the oil crisis, the UK was in financial difficulty and the Services were under threat of a Defence Review. The then CAS, a well-meaning gentleman who name was I think Humphries, offered "pre-emptive" cuts to the RAF. The Government of the day said "Thanks very much" and took them. The Defence Review was then held and all three Services, including the RAF, gave up even more. At that time the RN and Army, always much shrewder with internal MoD wrangling, sat on the side-lines until they were forced into cuts. I note that with their usual wisdom, neither the RN nor Army are today offering any "savings" whatsoever. The RN "carrier gambit" is very clever. They know what the future holds, and it won't be good for any of our Services, but unless the RAF leaders sharpen up, the Army and RN will be much less badly mawled by the results of the financial crisis.

Addressing the point about the success of the RAF expanding in the '30's there are several reasons why this would be impossible in the foreseeable future. The main one is the enormous investment required to build an RAF airfield and the almost impossibilty of obtaining Planning Position.

So, those of you with any influence, hang on to every piece of concrete and every hangar you can, because they will NEVER be replaced, even if we have 5 years notice of invasion.

Willantis

[1.3VStall]

I was going to write a post about the RAF that existed when I was a space cadet in the '60s - the RAF that I joined. I was going to wax lyrical about the global force that was, with RAF stations (not bases) from Sydenham to Seletar, from Macrihanish to Masirah, the communications flights, the Maintenance Units, aircraft lined up on the ASP (rather than HASs), the leaders (not managers), the commanders (not executives).....

But then I woke up; those days are gone forever. I shall go and open a bottle, dribble into my glass of Merlot and know that that I enjoyed the dying days of a once-proud Service.

[acmech1954]

Nine Tonka's - Display aircraft plus spares for the RAF Memorial Flight :}.

[Could be the last?]

So if they scrap the Reds, does that mean the BBMF will follow shortly after?

[angelorange]

Chinese are making even USAF think about F22 cancellations:

http://www.aviationweek.com:80/aw/generic/story_airshow.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/DBCHF111509.xml&show=dubai2009

[Finnpog]

Why will Britain need the RAF when the EU Defence Force is responsible for all things militaristic.

Italy's Foreign Minister says post-Lisbon EU needs a European Army - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6917652.ece)

[Rigga]

Sort of drops into place now - doesn't it?

New EU Treaty (not) validated by the last EU country (watch out for the EU Grants there next year) and the political drive for the new EU Forces a few days later, strangely coinciding with the announcement of plans to reduce independant national forces.

The French have Non-NATO, but EU, nukes.

Call me a cynic but, to complete the roll-over, we'll have to start driving on the left next.

Bon Chance, Mein Fruende.

[Lyneham Lad]

So if they scrap the Reds, does that mean the BBMF will follow shortly after?

Silly boy, of course not. They will be deployed to somewhere hot & sandy.
After all, we still have to support the troops in the field...

[Alber Ratman]

Yeah, get some 40mm "S" guns fitted to the Hurricanes.. You can also reform 6 with them and paint the tin openers on the engine cowls..:E

[Lyneham Lad]

Just goes to show what 'Open Government' we have...

http://www.kmercerphotography.co.uk/IMG_3357_v1_BW_800.jpg

[Jabba_TG12]

Could it be that the 9 x retained Tonkas are for SEAD?

[Bertie Thruster]

Vec:

3 ejections in the last 12 months is 1 every 4 months.

Thanks for the maths lesson.

(Did UK milsar '85-97; I attended just 1 ejection in '89. Curiously it was the winchops first ejection attended after 20 years of milsar.)

[Mick Strigg]

It's actually one every 6 months!

[GeeRam]

Stumbled upon this quote yesterday...... :hmm:

Not to have an adequate air force in the present state of the world is to compromise the foundations of national freedom and independence.

— Winston Churchill, House of Commons, 14 March 1933.

[Dengue_Dude]

Buy some Pitt's Specials and paint them red, no one will know! They're piston engined so could replace BBMF at the same time.

They could then flog the Hawks to some third world country whose air force is more powerful than ours.

This would also free up lots of real estate (aka RAF stations) for occupation by illegal immigrants, asylum seekers and their social workers et al.

Just think of the savings - we also don't need to deploy overseas to 'fight' our enemies, we just invite them over here to save travelling time and provide an excuse to get rid of the AT fleet too.

I reckon that's a plan.

[Doctor Cruces]

Can't see Marham closing, what with it being Sandringham airport an' all that.

Doc C:ok:

[Gainesy]

Well the SNP has launched a McSpittle-flecked attack on the very idea of closing any Stations in Woadistan. Today's Scotsman (I think, deleted it).

Local/regional papers now jumping on the line: "Keep Our Base, its not that noisy, no, really. Did we say that? Didn't mean it, honest. Keep spending Lads. Pleease?"

Google RAF Base Cuts or similar in Google News Alerts.

[Jabba_TG12]

One of the contributors on the Times' comment section has suggested that once he's finished cutting the RAF that there may well be a place for Dalton running the NHS or the Post Office if he can deliver 25% cuts such as this without being prompted....:}:E

[grobace]

I agree totally with the thrust of your point, willantis, but would like to correct your hazy remembrance of events. Andrew Humphrey instituted a Strike Command economy project when he was CinC and pared something like 15% off the Command's operating costs. This was not an economy forced upon him from the Treasury, and he was quite proud, even smug, about what he had achieved. Shortly after becoming CAS, the governmment of the day trimmed 10% (iirc) off the defence budget, and this saving was to be applied across the board. CAS tried to keep from smirking when he informed the then Secretary of State for Defence that the RAF had already made savings of this order. He was not best pleased when he was told that what he had done a year or so previously was history!
:ugh:

[Limpopo]

Seems as if someone has set up a petition already:

Petition to: stop any further cuts to our armed forces, to do so would be wholly irresponsible and place the security of our nation in danger. | Number10.gov.uk (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/STOPDEFENCECUTS/)

[Mick Strigg]

Defence budget 1999 (before Iraq & Afghanistan) - 3% of GDP

Defence budget 2009 - 2.2% of GDP

'nuff said!

[XR219]

Well the SNP has launched a McSpittle-flecked attack on the very idea of closing any Stations in Woadistan. Today's Scotsman (I think, deleted it).

Local/regional papers now jumping on the line: "Keep Our Base, its not that noisy, no, really. Did we say that? Didn't mean it, honest. Keep spending Lads. Pleease?"

Found it here:

SNP demands pledge over future of RAF airbases - Press & Journal (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1484565?UserKey=)

It's certainly bizarre that the SNP should be complaining about the Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom closing bases in Scotland - they seem to have quite the opposite view about HMNB Clyde! And as for the "defence underspend in Scotland"... exactly how much do they envisage spending on defence in the event of independence?

[Trumpet_trousers]

An MoD spokesman said many proposals were being considered as part of wider budget and spending talks that are held each year.

He said there was “absolutely no suggestion” that the Moray bases would close.

“It is just one of many options,” he added.

“The MoD is looking at a vast range of things, most of which will never hap- pen (sic)

That's it then... done deal :ok:

[pr00ne]

Mick Strigg,

"Defence budget 1999 (before Iraq & Afghanistan) - 3% of GDP

Defence budget 2009 - 2.2% of GDP

'nuff said!"

Actually there's a good deal more to say, such as;

GDP 1999- £928bn.

GDP 2009- £1,448Bn. (that's 2.65 Trillion US Dollars at 2008 prices)

[whowhenwhy]

Speaks volumes for the rate of inflation and the differences between real term increases and "number increases" Oh dear, the rate of inflation in the defence sector has outstripped the rate of inflation in the public sector by about 300%.

Sorry, what was your point?:ugh:

[Squirrel 41]

Pr00ne is basically right; there have been real-terms increases in defence spending since at least 2001 (I don't have the figures in front of me). It is also true that the last time this happened was under Thatcher, but only from about '82 to '85 (RN chums of a certain age will remember how the "pro-forces" Tory government was more than happy to implement the 1981 Nott Review...)

However, defence inflation has been running ahead of inflation for the rest of the economy, and though the arguments vary, it is probably the result of a number of problems - poor programme management, bespoke high technology - but mostly because we're not comparing like with like: of course a Batch 3 Typhoon is going to cost more than an F3 - or even a Batch 1 Typhoon - because it is more capable. (Or at least it bl**dy well should be!! :hmm:)

So if you want more capable equipment, you need to cover inflation in the materials and poor programme management that characterises defence, but also to allow additional cash for the improvements in capability - which is not defence inflation per se, but it does cost more.

Hence, the Govt's position that they have increased defence spending year on year is correct but not strictly relevant in that it may not cover the increased capability, and since the UORs are capped by the Treasury, it is unlikely that they cover the full cost of the on-going operations.

S41

[JFZ90]

I thought the point was GDP has gone up 55% in 10 years - or around 5% per year.

In the same duration, defence spending has gone up around 15% in 10 years, or around 1.5% per year.

Hence in real terms, defence spend has increased 3.5% behind the growth in GDP - this is surely a cut in real terms, especially as all the costs of equipment & resources are more likely to be linked to GDP growth?

[Melchett01]

I wonder if deep down and away from the public limelight there is an appreciation by the various politicians, Sir Humphreys and starred officers that they really have screwed Defence up. Or do they still think that all is rosy and if we say that we are more capable than ever often enough, people will believe it regardless of the level of cuts that are inflicted?

Probably more of a hypothetical question but I really would love to get an insight into some of the thought processes that go on at the highest levels. That is assuming they do have thought processes that extend beyond their next promotion, gong or pension incremement. Do you think the thought ever flashes across their minds that they really might have mucked this up, or are they completely oblivious to the realities of life in Defence in the 21st century?

Furthermore, given the press reports earlier this summer about the ratio of civil servants to service personnel, I wonder what that ratio would be if we went down to sub-30k and what sort of public reaction that would generate. And given the expeditionary nature of the RAF that we are constantly being reminded of, and given that you need 5 personnel for every deployable post in order to maintain harmony levels, at what manning level does the RAF cease to be able to maintain its expeditionary capability without breaking individuals or causing a reduction in operational output? Surely it can't be much lower than 30k?!!! Or is that just a stupid question because the 'yes-men' will always make sure that the capability is seen to exist whether or not it actually does?

[Squirrel 41]

Melchett

It would be very interesting. Sadly, I doubt we'll ever know.

JFZ90

The 1.5% defence growth figure is a real growth (ie after inflation) whereas the 55% growth in the total economy is nominal (ie before inflation). There has been real growth in defence spending, it's just no been enough to meet our public commitments.

S41

[VinRouge]

We are truly b*ggered. I really dont think people realise the scale of the cuts that are coming our way once the governments change, across ALL public sectors.

FTAdviser.com - Jupiter issues gilts warnings (http://www.ftadviser.com/InvestmentAdviser/Investments/AssetClass/FixedIncome/News/article/20091116/2b3338c2-d055-11de-8eea-00144f2af8e8/Jupiter-issues-gilts-warnings.jsp)

[Navaleye]

In the latest RUSI journal, I see Philip Sabin is advocating that the future deep strike capability be placed in the F35-C which will can be operated of sea or land effectively. We all know its the aircraft that cost the most. It makes sense to have a capability that is truly dual role and state of the art to avoid costly duplication of now unaffordable assets.

[Gainesy]

avoid costly duplication of capability

Such as two carriers?:E

(Yeh, yeh, I know...):)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Thread OFF

I think you'll find that the majority of SAR jobs could be considered Maritime.

Sorry but this is demonstrably wrong - look at the stats.

DASA list 740 SAROPs by Mil SAR helos in the 3rd quarter of 2009, 59 of which were classed as maritime.

Kind of blows your theory out of the water, doesn't it?

Even if you add in the 238 SAROps by MCA aircraft in the same period, and assume that every MCA SAROp was maritime (which is patently bolleaux), you'd still have less than 300 maritime out of nearly 1000!

More info here if anyone's interested.

http://http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/index.php?page=48&thiscontent=1520&date=2009-11-02&pubType=0&PublishTime=09:30:00&from=home&tabOption=1

Thread ON

[Biggus]

Two points to consider with respect to this "story":

1) Lists of cost saving measures are drawn up at every planning round. It doesn't necessarily mean that all, or indeed any, of them will actually happen.

2) There could be a classic psychological ploy being used here. Come up with a very long list of cuts, and when only a small number are implemented people see it as a "positive", in terms of cuts avoided, rather than as a negative.


Alternatively of course, it could be that the country is broke, and all the armed services are about to suffer massive budget reductions.......:confused:

[VinRouge]

You might want to see what happened in Canada when the conservative government there cut expenditure by 25% overnight for a vague idea... Question is, which despot regime will take advantage of our under-resourced, burnt out armed forces once we signal we cant even defend our own shores, never mind one far away...