Defence Review Result at End of October

[ORAC]

Defence cuts decision to come early
Date: 03 August 2010

A decision on where the axe will fall on the armed forces has been brought forward, the defence secretary said yesterday.

Dr Liam Fox confirmed that an announcement following a major review of defence spending will be made in the last week of October. The decision was previously expected to be released at Christmas.

Dr Fox said all sectors were being considered but no decisions had yet been made.

He said: "We have some difficult decisions but the crux decision is what are the risks we are willing to take for Britain's national security. We will make most of the difficult decisions in September, I will then take the sum of that to the national security council and make my announcement in the last week of October." Dr Fox said a fixed budget had not yet been set by the Treasury and negotiations were "ongoing".

Last week, Chancellor George Osborne announced that the full £20 billion cost of renewing the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent must be paid for out of the defence budget.

Dr Fox said he could not confirm whether major defence projects such as the two new aircraft carriers currently on order would survive the review.

[Wyler]

Let's make Friday 22 Oct the biggest Happy Hour 'since records began'.

[Squirrel 41]

No surprise - it's the same week that the Spending Review across govt will come out (20 October).

Wyler: Top plan. And with some style & panache, I trust!

S41

[peter272]

Where is Guy Fawkes when you need him.....!!!!

[Jig Peter]

I hope that when the British government announces what it's going to cut, the Treasury's manning will also be looked at, with similar percentages to the other departments.
People with access to "certain quarters" and/or media sources might well start a campaign to make sure that the bright young (?) things wielding their swinge edicts have to defend their own positions as well as attacking other people's ... If there are no cuts in the Treasury's staffing, the overall governmental staffing ration will be seriously out of kilter - if it wasn't already ...
Quis custodiet, etc ... *
:E:E:E
* Forgotten the Latin for "cut" ...

[Archimedes]

Peter272 - the role of Incendiarist (Parliamentary) was placed on a 'capability holiday' some years ago, with the aspiration that the position would be filled in due course via a PFI.

Unfortunately, the contractual details have taken longer to negotiate than anticipated, with disputes between the Parliamentary Authorities, the MoD and the preferred bidder over who, exactly, bears the risk in this arrangement.

Wyler - splendid idea.

[cazatou]

Squirrel 41

Easy on the panache - that is French for Shandy!!

[Squirrel 41]

JigP

Actually HM Treasury is comparatively tiny, and has a pretty taut budget to ensure that it sets a good example for the rest of HMG. You may not like them, but it's time to look somewhere else.

S41

[Jig Peter]

Nice to know that, S41, but surely they're in the same boat as the rest of the Ministries, despite their "taut Budgie" ? (ironic badinage)
After all, those no doubt excellent and devoted experts could always find gainful employment alongside those "instant answer" writers for a certain Economy magazine ? (more of the above ...).

[vecvechookattack]

Let's make Friday 22 Oct the biggest Happy Hour 'since records began'.

Thats a pretty good idea. Why dont we arrange for the party to end all parites. Each mess should arrange a happy hour for the Friday evening ( Stag please Gentlemen).... so that we can drown our sorrows.....

[green granite]

* Forgotten the Latin for "cut" ...

incidere? ..........................

[dctyke]

Quote: Thats a pretty good idea. Why dont we arrange for the party to end all parites. Each mess should arrange a happy hour for the Friday evening ( Stag please Gentlemen).... so that we can drown our sorrows.....

We don't fly Spitfires front line anymore and we now have really good women fast jet crew and working in other areas, why on earth would you want to exclude them from their mess? :ugh:

[frodo_monkey]

Am I in a different military?! Surely 'stag' means 'no partners'... But I agree that a tri-service happy hour megalash is a great idea :ok:

[nivsy]

Would that be drinking your sorrows in a heavily alcohol subsidised mess environment??? Enjoy it while you can!

[4Foxtrot]

Cheap, yes. Subsidised, no. And yes we will enjoy it.

[StopStart]

Would that be drinking your sorrows in a heavily alcohol subsidised mess environment???

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:IqmG-uCZfXI4uM:http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/scharatz/IMG_7250.jpg&t=1

[Grimweasel]

Hahah!! Splendid - we have an Arnhem Dinner night at Odius that night!! What an excellent bash that should be then. Quite Apt too. Got our arse kicked there and we'll be having our arse kicked by HMG that day too! ;-)

[Lima Juliet]

StopStart

That is not the Latin for "cut"...unless you're Jewish of course!!! :eek:

[ralphmalph]

Stopstart....loving your work.

I myself, pay my OWN mess bills to substitute my OWN beer.

...chisler!

Ralph

[Training Risky]

We don't fly Spitfires front line anymore and we now have really good women fast jet crew and working in other areas, why on earth would you want to exclude them from their mess?

Who mentioned Spitfires? Do we let women near the jets these days?! Dearie-me, it's political correctness gone mad - what if they all got pregnant at once?

[hulahoop7]

Some fighter jock might have a go at Tower Bridge again!

[163627]

Are we likely to end up with any extra or are they all for the chop? Still who needs modern fit for role helicopters anyway when according to the minister we can always hitch a lift from our chums!

Extra Chinooks 'not a certainty' - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=13736)

[Climebear]

If we don't will the RAF still loose the Merlins to the RN?

[Yozzer]

I am told that when a minister bleated in Parliament recently regarding the purchase of 10 x NH90, that he actually meant 10 x Chinook, and that being so, 10 of 22 should have been ringfenced.

If the planned order for 22 CH47 is not completed; & after the spin, hype, rhetoric, call it what you will, over the last many years, that is as good a combat indicator as you are ever going to get that a pull out is imminent. Quite honestly, we cannot afford to be in Afghanistan another day in monetary terms. For sure it is a dilema for a Govt to announce radical cuts across the sectors that effect the public directly whilst maintaining a war machine that comes at a considerable price including that of UK lives.

There can be little argument from across all UK Forces that whilst the situation overseas continues; the new 22 Chinooks, Ground support and Aircrew Trg are essential not just desirable. As such they should be a certainty.

[xenolith]

The AOR in Afghanistan has been reduced and an exit date has been announced (ish). Politically there is enough SH to service the remaining effort, so:
· Stop the Puma 2. Loads of SH experience to convert to Chinook and Merlin and ease springs on those fleets.
· Cancel the Chinook buy.
· Merlin’s stay with the crabs. Why spend the money training navy crews?
· Let the jungly cabs wither on the branch.
With cuts of 25% they have to lose manpower therefore there must be a redundancy package. They will do it at minimal legal cost. The only down side is the public’s perception of getting rid of elements of our over stretched armed forces; but they can live with that seeing as how the rest of the public sector are taking a hit.

[Grimweasel]

...but if we scale back on our expeditionary warfare and global policing and the Army takes a cut of 30K troops (as rumoured) then do we really need another 22 Chinooks?? I don't think that we will. I see us pulling out of Afghan within 2-3 years - by which time the first of the new Chinooks would be coming on line. Odiham is not big enough and Benson not much better. I think the right thing to do would be to cancel the order and spend the money on Air Defence capabilities - controversial I know; but overseas forces could be looking at our defence review with glee knowing that we are stupidly going to cancel capabilities for the war that we have not, as yet, seen around the corner - the next global war will be fought over food and natural resources.

[XR219]

The Daily Telegraph is reporting on "detailed proposals" it has received:

RAF to lose 7000 personnel and 295 aircraft - "fewer than 200 fighter planes for the first time since 1914"
TGRF to be canned entirely
Typhoon buy to be reduced to 107 aircraft based at a single station
Nimrod MRA4 looking "vulnerable"
Hercules fleet to be replaced by 22 A400Ms

RAF to shrink to World War One levels - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html)

[Archimedes]

When did we have the stealth increase in the size of the RAF to bring it up to 5th biggest in the world?

He's also wrong about 1914 - the RFC mustered a grand total of about 100 aircraft of all types by the end of the year, and the RNAS wasn't much better off - certainly not 200 fighters. And the RAF has been lower than 200 fighters on other occasions - unless you're very slack with the accounting and include inter-war army co-operation types and bombers as 'fighters'...

You'll also note that the article mentions things about meetings to discuss various proposals, which suggests that these aren't as definite or as clear cut as the paper wishes us to believe?

[Squirrel 41]

Typhoon buy to be reduced to 107 aircraft based at a single station

This would make sense as a long term fleet of Tranche 2 and Tranche 3A after all the Tranche 1s get retired this decade. Interesting to see if this number falls further if the dozen to Oman comes off.

But binning TGRF suggests keeping Harrier - which suggests that CVS remains and that CVF also remains. If so, not at all sure that this makes too much strategic sense.

And bye-bye Leuchars. Sniff! :sad:

S41

[The B Word]

Yup

It is far from a "done deal" - I saw some of the options (note they are still just options) and the Secretary of State's direction today. I also understand that a lot of the mates in MoD are going to have a working weekend very soon and are doing 14-16hr days at present :{

As usual, when you're in the know, you suddenly realise what a load of tripe the TV/Radio/Newspapers are serving up; that's why I don't buy newspapers anymore!

The B Word

PS From what I saw, nothing was sacred apart from the UORs! And they go after Herrick finishes anyway.

[Finningley Boy]

Well folks,

Many of you may not have read it yet, but today's Telegraph has announced the as yet to be approved cuts in Toy spending. Evidently, there will be 16'000 fewer military personnel altogether. This will break down as 7'000 from the R.A.F. 2'000 from the Navy and Marines and the rest from the Army. Equipment wise, this will mean; only 107 Typhoons, all GR4s to be phased out over 5 years, 5 fewer sea going vessels, including 2 Submarines, and a 40% reduction in Armourde Vehicles and the loss of a 5'000 strong Brigade.:{

Bases on the chop list include; Lossiemouth and Marham. The report also says this will mean the need for only one Tiffy base. However, Leuchars is not on ze list? The report also claims that we will get the F35, but fewer than 50!?:{

FB:(

[Finningley Boy]

Well folks,

Many of you may not have read it yet, but today's Telegraph has announced the as yet to be approved cuts in Toy spending. Evidently, there will be 16'000 fewer military personnel altogether. This will break down as 7'000 from the R.A.F. 2'000 from the Navy and Marines and the rest from the Army. Equipment wise, this will mean; only 107 Typhoons, all GR4s to be phased out over 5 years, 5 fewer sea going vessels, including 2 Submarines, and a 40% reduction in Armourde Vehicles and the loss of a 5'000 strong Brigade.:{

Bases on the chop list include; Lossiemouth and Marham. The report also says this will mean the need for only one Tiffy base. However, Leuchars is not on ze list? The report also claims that we will get the F35, but fewer than 50!?:{

FB:(

[Gnd]

Well-Well, I don't trust the press, I don't trust the press!!

[Postman Plod]

Maybe these things have been offered to scare the government into fewer cuts - I mean that would obviously work wouldn't it! The Government would NEVER cut all those things just because they were told they could, would they!


Now where did I put that sarcasm smiley....

[canard68]

We have been here before when Portillo was defence minister in the 90s he only asked for a brochure on the F16 and F18 and suggested some RAF ranks could be merged. Bae and the RAF went spare.Soon after a smear campaign shut him up.

[MaroonMan4]

Xenolith,

Be careful, be very careful indeed.

You sound very much like the RAF that got us into all of that trouble with that 'smash and grab' attempt on the RN Harriers, and look what chumps it made us look and where we are now.

Firstly, if you let the Fisheads 'wither on the branch' then are we the RAF seriously going to pick up the maritime/amphibious rotary expertise - how many of us really know (or care) about boats? Not just the flying from the decks, but also the deck handlers, air operations and air traffickers on board - think about fella, you have just invented a new career stream for the RAF that is already there in the RN! And whatever anyone says there will be a future requirement of force projection from the sea, you can cancel or 'capability holiday' amphibious warfare, but whether a potential disaster relief or a NEO or a full blown campaign that does not have the political host nation support and/or the political will for a full blown theatre entry infrastructure - we will be flying SH from the sea in the future and that is a given.

Secondly, are we able to become the maritime experts? From my part I haven't been on the O Boat for over a year now and that was just playing at it, and I certainly have no enthusiasm to go to sea more often - do you? We could take it on risk and train on our way to the operation, but seriously, post Haddon-Cave, the Puma report etc etc, the first aircraft that crashes into the sea/deck will drive a very public coach and horses through any HMG/HMT/MOD 'take it on risk' policy.

Lastly, your statement about 'Merlin stay with the crabs, why train the navy crews', that statement is gold dust to the Fisheads as they could equally say why not retrain the Sea King Fishead crews direct onto CH47 and retain your amphibious/maritime expertise and save the RAF from having to retrain its (non maritime trained) Puma crews. Made even more relevant if we do keep the new carriers which will be CH47/amphibious capable.

Is your option more joint and adds/retains wider defence capability (cost effectively), or does the one that I have just highlighted above add the value?

As I said, be careful

[Yozzer]

I am hopeful, and perhaps knaively so, that the political spin we are witnessing is far more then eventual reality, for it is good political rhetoric for the subsequent cuts 'not to be as drastic as first anticipated'. I accept though that whatever comes will not be nice and will effectively hand the Falklands to the Argentinians on a silver salver.

Looking on the bright side; Ivan can save some fuel money for there is little point is testing UKAD if there is no challenge to be had, and we may as well offer Faslane as a Russian sub refuel point because then at least we will know when the subs are cruising down the Irish Sea. UK Plc could save a few pennies by chinning off the Commonwealth because there is sod all we can provide that makes the little union flag tucked away in the corner of many worth a dime nowadays.

The real shocker will be when the UK Defence Force replaces all the individual services.

[Wyler]

Despite the fact that the story has it's fair share of spin, it looks like we are headed down the EU Defence Force road. Our contribution will be a few nuclear boats, some Naval assets (possibly one carrier), a small specialised landforce with a limited lift capability and a few high tec FJ aircraft.

Politically, it has been assessed that we are no longer a world power militarily and our future lies as a bit player. Like it or loathe it, it is a logical step in the current climate. The only pothole however, is will the great European experiment survive the current financial crisis? I have my doubts. Also, my experience of NATO is very much one of a paper tiger and I see an EU Defence Force as being very similar.

Unrestricted immigration is another crucial part in this jigsaw. A deliberate policy to further dilute the nationalist parts of the population. Could you ever see conscription happening again in this country? No, we are being merged by stealth to suit the bigger picture.

The three services will remain because, at the moment, it will be politically unacceptable to merge into one. However, with the much needed cull of senior Officers, the top of the pyramid will probably reflect a single entity in all but name.

Still, we are committed now because what is lost over the next 5 years will not be replaced.

I just hope those in power have made the right calls.

Cynical, moi?

[Finningley Boy]

I think people talk about the future as if it's a foregone conclusion. We are facing economic difficulties yes. But just because of this, it doesn't mean we're finished as a country as too many people seem far to eager to not just imply, but swear is the case. Nobody knows what the Government agenda is. One thing for sure, more than 30 years ago when I was in the R.A.F. everyone with a British Passport I spoke to was so quick to describe the United Kingdom as a bit player, no longer an Empire or a world power, an insigificant country which carrys no influence any longer. If that was then, then what the hell are we now?:rolleyes:

FB

[xenolith]

MM4

Sorry didn’t understand any of that.
I did prefix with ‘Politically....’ Pretend you’re a politician who’s got to make drastic cuts, who’s never been in HM Armed Forces, don’t look further than Afghanistan and then read my previous again.
You didn’t mention manning; what’s your take on the manpower cuts?

[teeteringhead]

when Portillo was defence minister in the 90s he only asked for a brochure on the F16 and F18 and suggested some RAF ranks could be merged
... on the rank question, both RN and RAF seem to be heading for about 35k bodies ....

...... which is about the same size as the Met. Now the Met, from PC to Commissioner has (I think) a total of about 9 ranks, while the RAF (from AC to 4*) has about 18!! and the RN about the same .... (never really understood RN non-commissioned ranks).

.... er .... why??:confused:

[Pheasant]

One can start to see the following construct:
4*s: CDS (political adviser), VCDS (finance and equipment), CJO (ops) ie disband London based Service Chiefs, Services rotate the remaining top posts.
3*s: CsinC of each Service(also act as head of Service); key Central staff appointments, NATO etc.

Joint components run via CJO removing tasking from CsinC ie removing (eg) Joint Harrier and JHC issues from single Service antics.

All "air" run through RAF but with environmental component 2*/1*s ie RN 2* runs maritime and is maritime AOA; Army 2* runs field helos; RAF 2* runs jets and heavies.

All "land" run by Army with 2*/1* components ie RM and RAF Regt sit under Army C2 but retain environmental expertise.

RN has all maritime.

[endplay]

Do you think that we will have wait for Lord Stirrup of Jocks memoirs before we hear how he fought valiantly against the cuts of the years he served as CAS/CDS? Wouldn't want to jeopardise the peerage what!

What sort of deal will the redundees get after the changes announced following the last round?

Glad I'm out and feel sorry for those still serving.

[Bunker Mentality]

Word is there won't be any redundancies for Service people, although the Civil Service is likely to put some sort of package together.

Service manpower reductions will be through natural wastage, apparently, with reduced recruiting. As well as a sharp drop in the number of attractive jobs (as a result of the reduced number of ac), a severe reduction in promotion numbers will encourage a rise in PVR rates - which cuts the pay and pensions bill too, as PVR results in a 10% reduction in your pension.

Is the Telegraph right? Don't know; the decision's not made yet, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. So pick your 2 favourites and take your betting slip down to Ladbrooks.

The decision making should be guided by a Govt assessment of what it wants the Services to be able to do (the SDSR), and that assessment should drive the future Force structure. At the moment, though, most commentators seem to be treating it as just another planning round. The staffs are offering up a few slices (or chunks) of their particular salami, which is the preparatory work they have been instructed to do.

What the Telegraph and other media should be doing is looking at our long-term needs and place in the world, and thinking about where our foreign policy should be going and what that implies for Defence needs. Hyper-ventilating over every leak from MB is not the way to influence Govt policy - particularly if you think that policy should be intelligent, coherent and in the national interest, rather than just to oil the squeaky wheels for partisan advantage.

[SaddamsLoveChild]

If they time it right, the Reds will have finished swanning round the world wasting 1M of the def budget on coloured smoke, and if someone has some guts they could also hack the UAS drinking Sqns and free up some real estate.............should save quite a bit me thinks.

[Low Flier]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01692/0708-MATT-web_1692825a.jpg

[vfr into cloud]

BM,

say that again "as PVR results in a 10% reduction in your pension" is this true
i fcuking hope not:mad:

[vecvechookattack]

He meant that PVR means a reduction in Flying Pay....not pension

[The B Word]

Nope he's right, PVR reduces pension:

Flt Lt retiring at Optional Retirement Date (ORD) after 16 years of Service = pension of £12,557 per year

Flt Lt PVR after 16 years and 30 days of Service (having signed on past ORD) = pension of £11,028 per year

I make that £1529 per year loss or about 12%

I hope that hasn't spoiled your Saturday evening!!!

The B Word

[andrewn]

As others have pointed out these DT 'cuts' must be options only cos if they are taken as read then the RAF, in terms of offensive capability, effectively becomes null and void.

My optimistic hat hopes that it's scrap GR4 or reduce Typhoon numbers. To do both is madness, right?

[The B Word]

Mate, as I said earlier there are "options" only at this point - no decision has been made. Most of the "options" I have seen have first and second screening dates in the coming weeks.

As usual the Press have got it wrong! :ugh::ugh:

The B Word

[vfr into cloud]

The B Word

thank god im not a zob then and done 23 years pre PVR of a los 30 engagment as a pond lifer, is my pension safe ?

Vfr

[NutLoose]

You know this is all working on a clean exit from Afghanistan and a happy ever after scenario, if it all goes t*ts up and comes back to haunt us / bite us we will be up sh*t creek without a paddle, as to quote a major chain, "once it's gone, it's gone"...........

You play the big boys and get yourselves embroiled in a big boys war then think........Ohhh we can't afford this, let's play possum, roll over say we have reached our objectives, in the mean time our "objectives" who are still a force to be reckoned with are not so nieve as to say, "fair play you have had your go, let's all be pals now and forget the past"..... it doesn't work like that and be you Neville Chamberlain waiving your piece of paper or David Cameron speaking to the house, It feels like you are just letting go of the tigers tail and are playing duck with the security of the country.....

[LFFC]

£20bn defence contracts face axe (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931900/20bn-defence-contracts-face-axe.html)

More than £20bn of defence contracts structured as private finance initiatives (PFIs) face the axe as the Ministry of Defence undertakes radical cuts to address a £35bn deficit.

I guess this won't have endeared the Chancellor towards PFI contracts:

PFI - Heads the contractor wins, tails the taxpayer loses. (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1301173/Fish-chips-office-That-costs-taxpayers-148-Chancellor.html)

[Squirrel 41]

DETR was/is a shambles - the central point for savings IIRC was that the service schools were inefficient and that training could be significantly streamlined by private sector magic dust.

Uh-huh.

When you take this away, then the numbers become much less attractive - but then if you've not invested in the extant schools for several years, you get yourself into a position where you have to proceed with the PFI because you've got no robust Plan B. (FSTA sound familiar?)

I loved this bit:

The £10bn programme to supply and maintain 14 refuelling and transport planes based on the Airbus A330, is thought to be safest because it has been under contract for two years, and there is an urgent need for transport planes in Afghanistan.

Except as we all know from the NAO's report, the MoD decided to sign the PFI without the DAS, so the one place the A330s won't be going is Afghanistan - or not at least, anytime soon.

S41

[vecvechookattack]

I keep hearing constant rumours that the MOD will pull out of the SAR-H contract....sad day for our SAR heros but I suppose there will be plenty of jobs for the boys outside.

[The Old Fat One]

Should service manpower cuts become a requirement, I doubt the MOD will be allowed to plan on natural wastage and specifically, the factoring of PVR rates is way too much of an unknown variable. PVR is, and always has been, a mixture of push and pull factors and if you're earning anywhere between 30K and 70K the pull factor from the commercial world is going to be a little on the downside! Likewise, a lot of people leaving the forces either step sideways into another public sector post or head for the defence industry...in both cases the very areas where jobs are going to be hit hardest.

Realistically, if manpower cuts are on the way then so is a redundancy package and I have seen nothing to suggest that it won't be the usual Armed Forces scheme (something like, up to 19 months pay tax free and pension that has been earned paid in full).

[Could be the last?]

I can't see the MOD paying for ATPL(H)s for pilots year in/year out. Moreover, the time frames required to get vfm for trg the rearcrew as paramedics is at odds with policy of 1 tour SAR and then back to SH. If they break away/clarify the FI element of the contract then I can see the Mil involvement with the SARH being removed completely. I appreciate that there will be contract implications for removing the Mil support to the capability, but I'm sure after a period of time the contract will be amended the Mil crews will fade away and other bidders will be too apathetic to challenge.

What would be interesting is to compare the cost of the various alternate options for keeping the capability within the Mil with the preferred bidder. Or to match the resources that the preferred bidder intends to use to provide the SAR capability with a Mil solution: For example, if they intend to reduce the support staff (SE Fitts/Ops/Eng etc) and reduce the number of ac then we match it and work out our cost...... But I'm sure that has been done already!

Looking at the project from the preferred bidder's angle, would they want the hassle of having to include the Mil within their decision process? It would be a distraction from their profit making and would not allow total autonomy - hard to affect T&Cs when one base/personnel are working to one set of rules and another to another.

What a sad day it will be, if this is pushed through and the Mil play second fiddle to a contractor for a capability of this importance.:= I

[Pontius Navigator]

Realistically, if manpower cuts are on the way then so is a redundancy package.

As in the '73 scheme, and later the '90 scheme the redundancy must have elements of both voluntary and compulsory. People such as Typhoon pilots may not be in the bracket. Others maybe in the voluntary package and also in the complusory one. Then they will cherry pick and allow only those volunteers that they would have pushed anyway and push those that are surplus to requirements.

In '73 FOFL were only offered voluntary redundancy and then only those in specific roles. SO2 and higher were in both voluntary and compulsory and there were quite a few surprises.

With the F3 demise and possible effects on the GR4, WSO(N) look vulnerable.

[F.O.D]

vfr into cloud and B word,

my understanding of the impact of PVR on pension was is that it is tapered according to length of service; if you PVR after 16 years, it costs you approx 12% of your pension. If you PVR at age 50, you lose nothing at all. In between 38 and 50 years old, the % you lose gradually reduces if you PVR. This was for AFPS 75, not sure what happens with AFPS 05.

F.O.D

[PTC REMF]

Slightly off track but is the coast guard funded from the MOD or the HMRC?

[LFFC]

PTC REMF

I believe that the Coast Guard are funded by the Department for Transport. However, two thirds of the cost of the £7b UK SAR Helicopter project (http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/uk_sar_helicopter_contract_bidder_selected.html) was going to be paid by the MOD. Here's a good link:

Treasury Review of Pending Projects (http://richardwillisuk.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/treasury-announces-result-of-review-of-pending-projects/)

Given recent developments with funding for Trident, I would imagine that the MOD will now be playing hardball and leaving the DfT to foot the whole bill.

[2Planks]

FOD is correct re tapering of the penalty if you PVR on AFPS75. I suggest rather than causing alarm people use this quite handy little gizzer:

Under Construction (http://83.138.137.164:8080/)

[VinRouge]

Anyone seen the NEW redundancy terms they are ******* us up the a$$ with?

Its not this by the way:

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/0E5372B7-0CC6-4CE6-A139-C6AA26B5196E/0/Redundancybookletjan07.pdf

which is still the active link on the MOD webside.

This came out recently:

The Armed Forces (Redundancy, Resettlement and Gratuity Earnings Schemes) Order 2010 No. 345 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/uksi_20100345_en_1)

Good to see the CS took the government to the high court when they pushed this through on them. They (the CS)won by the way.

Anyone getting compulsory redundancy should seriously consider class action...

[NorthSouth]

Flt Lt retiring at Optional Retirement Date (ORD) after 16 years of Service = pension of £12,557 per yearYou get a pension of £12k a year when you're only in your 30s and have more than half your working life ahead of you? If I was you I would go easy on the whinging.:hmm:
NS

[VinRouge]

NorthSouth,

Not great if you get made compulsorily redundant half way through your career with not a sausage of opportunity outside, having been shot at, rocketed, mortared and spent significant time away from the family for the past 8 years....

Many will laugh at this, but the pension at the end of it all was certainly at the forefront of my mind when I was did an average of 5 month-long dets a year until recently. :ugh:

[BIG MACH]

We are paying 16 billion per year into the EU, minus what they give us back for projects of which Brussels approves; our foreign aid budget is ring-fenced, including, presumably the near billion we give to India; (is that to help with their Space programme?) we have 5 million unemployed or receiving disability benefits, including 25 year olds unable to work due stress; Denis Healey tells us that the Civil Service has twice the number of employees that it really needs;...............but we are cutting the defence budget!!

The primary purpose of the state is to ensure internal and external security. Without those essentials the state is vulnerable to destruction.

One of my American cousins sent me this, which is most apposite to our present condition:-

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new
constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor
at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as
a permanent form of government.

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters
discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who
promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result
that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal
policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
beginning of history has been about 200 years.

During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the
following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage.

Britain is now a vassal state of Europe with a population that sucks at the government tit. We have reached item 8.

[NutLoose]

I still say chop the Welsh and Scottish assemblies........ we are paying three times over in both staffing and infrastructure to do what was once done by Parliament............

[The Old Fat One]

Did somebody mention bondage...now you're talking!

[Blacksheep]

Quite right BIG MACH, though I think we're in the middle of Stage 7. Stage 8 is the chaos that ends in Dictatorship. As a Scottish history professor, Alexander Tyler was hardly proferring his own opinion. It was the Greek philosophers who led the way with their condemnation of "Democracy". As Aristotle put it...

"Democracy is the worst of forms (of government) as it must inevitably descend into tyranny."

In Britain's own case we missed out on Stage 5. During the early twentieth century, our wealth was dissipated - mostly through defending democracy in Europe in two major wars - taking us directly from abundance to the apathy of the fifties and sixties. It is just a matter of time before we ( i.e. Europe) are overrun from the East, unable to defend our borders or our skies.

[MaroonMan4]

Xenolith,

Apologies if I misconstrued your post 26 (?) with my reply at post 36 (?), probably being over sensitive as I do fear that the bean counters and civil serpents are doing exactly what you say and revieiwng the whole Rotary Wing Strategy and they too are wondering why spend the costs on re-training RN Sea King crews to Merlin, and our Merlin crews to CH 47, when the cheapest option is to take the Fishead crews direct to CH47 and leave our Merlin crews where they are.

We managed to bat this off with the last 'think tank' question due to the O Boat not having a lift or hangar space that could fit CH47, but this question/observation has now resurfaced as it looks as though the O Boat will go in SDSR, with the promise that the second carrier will survive with a primary role as an amphibious boat.

This means that the Fisheads will get their hands on some of our CH47 - which maybe a good thing for Defence (and I certainly did not sign up to going to sea for protracted periods - so they are welcome to this role). But it does not bode well for the remainder of our rotary fleet, with as you have identified the Pumas likely to go and the Freaks not a real capability (sadly not lifting that much these days) and only propping the Italian AW/Finmeccanica.

As to man power cuts, my personal take (and certainly based upon no fact whatsoever) is that natural wastage will be achieved negating the requirement for redundancies.

Reduce promotion and employment opportunities (changes to commissions etc), reduce/remove CEA, tinker (i.e. reduce) with pensions, force people to move to places that they do not want to be based (Cornwall, East Anglia, Wales, Scotland), reduce HDT and other allowances.....

The push factor will be more than the pull factor of service life.....job done for the HMT :D

Then when the Private Sector picks up in a few years, mass exodus to airlines/civvie street and the MoD finds itself with not only very little capability, but also very few (experienced) people to operate this equipment effectively.

Anyone remember the MoD MARYLYN study (Manning and Recruitment in the Lean Years of the Nineties), which funny old thing foresaw the demographics and pull of civvie street, but it was ignored (hence the whole divisive FRIs).

'History does not repeat itself - it rhymes' - Mark Twain

[vfr into cloud]

Vinrouge
so this means we get 6 months pay when made redundant then?:D

i feel a rant coming on:ugh:

[VinRouge]

Depends on length of service and your current pension scheme:

9.—(1) A member of the armed forces is entitled to a payment under article 10 if conditions A to D are met.
(2) Condition A is that the person’s service as a member of the armed forces began before 6th April 2005.
(3) Condition B is that the person is not an excluded person.
(4) Condition C is that the person has been notified by the Defence Council that they will be treated for the purposes of the AFRS 2010 as having become redundant.
(5) Condition D is that the person’s service as a member of the armed forces ceases, in pursuance of a notification mentioned in paragraph (4), on a date after 6th April 2010.
(6) In paragraph (3) “excluded person” means—
(a) a person who is excluded by their terms and conditions of service from entitlement to payments under article 10, unless the Defence Council has agreed that they be treated as if those terms did not apply; or
(b) a person who would be entitled to a payment in respect of a notification under the Armed Forces Redundancy Scheme 2006(13 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/uksi_20100345_en_2#f00013)) had the notification referred to that Scheme.
(2) Subject to paragraph (4), an eligible person is entitled under this article to a lump sum payment calculated in accordance with articles 11 to 14.and the bottom line:

Amount of payment under article 10: leavers with long service commitments and insufficient redundancy reckonable service

11.—(1) Subject to articles 14 to 16, if—
(a) a member of the armed forces (L1) has a long service commitment, and
(b) upon ceasing service in the circumstances described in article 9(5), L1’s redundancy reckonable service is less than the relevant period of redundancy reckonable service specified in paragraph (2),
the amount to which L1 is entitled under article 10 is one-eighth of annual pay for each year of redundancy reckonable service.
(2) The relevant period of redundancy reckonable service is—
(a) where L1 is an officer—
(i) 16 years after L1 reached the age of 21; or
(ii) 18 years after L1 reached the age of 18; and
(b) where L1 is not an officer, 18 years after L1 reached the age of 18.
:mad:

I imagine you would get your pension you have earned up to that point; if you have completed your full "reckonable service", I expect you would get the following, plus gratuity and pension. This will be for bigwig star rank on 2 year contracts and our megabucks PA friends:

(a) “P” is the period after the time when service ceases in the circumstances described in article 9(5), for which L2 would have served, had L2 continued in the armed forces until the end of L2’s commitment period; and
(b) that period shall be calculated in accordance with article 7, as if “P” were redundancy reckonable service.
(4) Where L2 ceases service during the interim period the amount to which L2 is entitled under article 10 is—
(a) where P is at least 3 years, 9 months’ pay;
(b) where P is at least 2 years but less than 3 years, 6 months’ pay;
(c) where P is at least 1 year but less than 2 years, 3 months’ pay; and
(d) where P is less than 1 year, one-twelfth of 3 months’ pay for each complete month the commitment is shortened.
Compare this for the younger chaps to the "old" scheme

where someone having served 8 years would get an extra 2 months pay:

Completed SCP
Qualifying Service vs months redundancy pay
11 19
10 17
9 15
8 14
7 12
6 10
5 9
4 7
3 5
2 3
1 1On the old scheme, someone having completed more than 12 years is getting proper shafted:

Compensation – Leaver with More than
12 Years Service
If you are an Officer who on redundancy will have
completed at least 12 years but less than 13 years
qualifying service from age 18, you will receive a SCP
equivalent to 15 months’ pay plus 1—
12th of three months
pay for each additional whole month over
12 years.

Interesting if these backhanded changes will stand up in the high court if they bring in enforced redundancy

[whowhenwhy]

With 3 years left to go to my first ORD, I am preparing to get shafted!

Out of interest, do we get the 9 months pay + what we would have got as our terminal grant + pension had we finished the 16? I couldn't see anything that said one way or the other in all that load of bolleaux!

[VinRouge]

I think you will get your (proportion thereof) your gratuity and pension as long as you are passed IPP.

Which makes me think the people who are due to get shafted are those with remaining return on training or those currently in the training system; if I were a pilot going through training and they gave me the opportunity to either change to admin sec or bang my way through Virgin, I know which one I would be going for.

[vecvechookattack]

Helicopters to be scrapped amid defence spending cuts - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7943247/Helicopters-to-be-scrapped-amid-defence-spending-cuts.html?)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23866868-helicopters-face-20-percent-cuts-to-make-pound-4bn-defence-savings.do




Plenty of leaked rumours

[mr fish]

a question keeps going round my head,

when was the last time (if ever!!) a country REDUCED spending and equipment numbers while fighting a war??

[minigundiplomat]

I can almost reach that yellow and black handle.........

[Melchett01]

With regard to the Telegraph article about slashing RW, I do find it interesting to see that having spent years hammering Noo Liabour he has quickly changed his tune. And I quote from Fox's own blog:

But it is not just about manning where there is a gap. There are real gaps at the moment—we have a real shortage of battlefield helicopters, as I saw in Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago. That came as a direct result of this Government’s decision to cut the helicopter budget by £1.4 billion in 2004. We may be getting more helicopters now, but people in the field are asking what sort of idiots cut the helicopter budget in the middle of two wars.

We may only be in the middle of one war, but the principle still holds good - what idiot slashes defence when you're trying to fight a war?

For more of Fox's words of wisdom on spending, have a look here:

ConservativeHome's Parliament Page: Liam Fox MP (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/liam_fox_mp/)

[glad rag]

The headlong rush to the combined EU military farce is up and running.

Courtesy of EU Dave.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[LFFC]

Aircraft carriers may be axed, Trident safe - defence source (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE67I4IC20100819?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=401)

The latest from Reuters

(Reuters) - Britain may cancel one or both of its planned new aircraft carriers to cut costs but there are no plans to scale back the country's nuclear deterrent, a senior Ministry of Defence source said on Thursday.

The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the ageing fleet of 106 Tornado fighter planes would be retired by 2020, five years before they are due to leave service.

[Lyneham Lad]

Royal Navy may need to borrow US fighter jets (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7963116/Royal-Navy-may-need-to-borrow-US-fighter-jets.html)

Britain could be forced to "borrow" American warplanes for its new aircraft carriers as the Armed Forces' core capabilities are eroded by budget cuts. The country could also turn to America for surveillance aircraft if plans to buy new RAF spy planes are scrapped. Furthermore, the Navy may lose its ability to put troops ashore in an amphibious assault.

Click on the link for the full article. Now you see what happens when the Treasury geeks read PPRuNe! :eek:

[NURSE]

Interesting read with regards to helecopter cuts

would sugest Seaking will go possibly except AEW, Puma would be a good candidate saving on the refurbishment and concentrating the RAF on Chinook. The Merlin transport fleet should go to FAA to replace Sea King HC fleet and possibly transfare some of the Merlin ASW fleet to AEW role like the Italians already have.

[dead_pan]

what idiot slashes defence when you're trying to fight a war?

Yep, but its not a very big war, we're only a small player, and we won't be fighting it in a couple of years. I can't see us doing anything so bold/rash in the future - Iraq and Afghan were probably our last hurrah.

[CrabInCab]

Furthermore, the Navy may lose its ability to put troops ashore in an amphibious assault.

So Royal move, no Lit M. Writing on the wall for CHF? I do hope not.

:confused:

[NURSE]

The aid agencies are looking for 30 helecopters for the aid effort in pakistan wonder how quich we could transfare the puma force to pakistani airforce

[MaroonMan4]

Crab,

I too hope that you are right as not only do I NOT want to see an increase in my time deployed at sea doing Fishead operations and exercises I do not believe that either SHF HQ could provide the SME advice and embarked staff jobs that CHF currently does.

Are we really kidding ourselves that we in the light blue are both experienced and capable of deliverying rotary power projection from the sea?Let's be honest here, even if the politicians are mad enough to cut all of the UK's amphib capability we all know that rotary lift will still be required to operate from a Fishead boat in the future (second carrier).

I don't want it to be me and I think that I speak for many in light blue-from all branches.

What someone has failed to tell me, or provide any rationale response for is what are the flaws in RWS that was announced in Parliament only 9 months ago that had taken a strategic look at delivering affordable, Treasury agreed, rotary lift out to the 2030-2040 time frame and just about satisfy the recommendations of the pre-Afghanistan 2004 NAO report on Battlefield Helicopters?

The only aspect of RWS that I can see is that the Treasury have directed that both the 'Strategic' and 'Security' elements are to be ignored and that cuts are to be achieved regardless of any potential threat to UK security and the ubiquitous potential use of rotary lift.

Before we start slicing ourselves up should we be asking ourselves what the Treasury has suddenly found wrong with RWS?

[Squirrel 41]

MM4,

What has changed in the last 9 months is that the government has decided to reduce the government deficit by an additional £119bn in this Parliament, with 80% of that coming from spending cuts.

Bob Ainsworth's "policy" of creative accounting, head in sand and hope (aided and abetted by Bill Jeffrey and Jock Stirrup) was always going to hit the fiscal rocks - the NAO's Major Project Report 2009 showed that - and they weren't honest enough before the election to say so. :=

Instead, they relied on SDSR to square the mahoosive deficit (c. £50bn before the spending cuts) to make all of these unpalatable cuts after the election. I believe it is quaintley called "leadership" in some parts..... :hmm:

So 70 Chinooks? I rather doubt it.

S41

[MaroonMan4]

Squirrel,

Thank you-so in effect what you are saying is that RWS was doomed from the start and was pure political smoke and mirrors prior to the election?

You also infer therefore that no one is paying one bit of notice to the massive deficit in rotary lift identified and articulated in the PRE-AFGHANISTAN 2004 NAO report?

If I have construed your post correctly then what a waste for all those staff wollas working away on RWS for the last 9 months when those in the know it would never come to fruition.

More importantly it starkly highlights that there is absolutely nothing 'strategic' or 'security' related about this review as RWS present the Treasury with a viable plan out to 2030-2040.

[glad rag]

Would we save enough if we pulled out from Afg full stop?

Seems that to fight yesterdays war there, we are being asked to sacrifice any equipment modernisation/ replacement to keep up the technological pace for future defence of the realm.

And in the meantime the PM is going on "paternity" leave.:hmm:

[ORAC]

Defense News: Who'll Fund U.K.'s Next Nuke Subs? Industry Wants to Know (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4757962&c=EUR&s=SEA)

LONDON - Britain's largest defense industry organization wants Prime Minister David Cameron to clarify the government's position on funding the replacements for Britain's Trident nuclear missile submarines.

In an Aug. 25 letter sent to Cameron and released to the media, ADS Chairman Ian Godden said recent official statements appear to call into question the government's commitment to the nuclear deterrent, and to suggest that the cost of the program, dubbed Successor, will fall on the Ministry of Defence and require cuts elsewhere.

It is "vital this confusion is cleared up as soon as possible," Godden wrote. "Uncertainty caused by the statements will be as unsettling for investors as it must surely be for our allies. A decision to move Trident renewals to the defense budget without a commensurate transfer of funding calls into question the integrity of the Strategic Defence and Security Review process and complicates the future funding of our conventional capabilities and our nation's ability to support its allies."

Godden said the issue was of such national significance that the aerospace, defense and security trade body was making the letter public.

Chancellor George Osborne and Defence Secretary Liam Fox are rowing over who should pick up the cost of building a new fleet of nuclear submarines for the Royal Navy. Osborne said the cash would have to be found in the Ministry of Defence budget. Fox argues the government should pick up the tab, as was pledged by the previous Labour Administration who lost power to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in May.

A government White Paper put the cost of Successor at 15 billion to 20 billion pounds, at 2006 prices. At its height, Trident spending would likely top 2 billion pounds a year. The MoD's entire annual budget currently stands at 36.7 billion pounds.

The MoD recently completed a review of the Successor program to see where it could reduce costs. One of the options looked at was reducing the planned four-boat fleet to three.

The British government is scheduled to publish its defense review at the end of October along with the defense budget figures for the next four years. The MoD is bracing for a 20 percent cut over those four years, even as it faces an unfunded liability of around 37 billion pounds ($57.1 billion) over a decade, Fox revealed in a recent speech. Having to find the billions of pounds needed to replace the Trident subs would exacerbate the expected wide-scale cuts required by the military over the next few years.

[Squirrel 41]

MM4,

What someone has failed to tell me, or provide any rationale response for is what are the flaws in RWS that was announced in Parliament only 9 months ago that had taken a strategic look at delivering affordable, Treasury agreed, rotary lift out to the 2030-2040 time frame and just about satisfy the recommendations of the pre-Afghanistan 2004 NAO report on Battlefield Helicopters?

The flaw is that it isn't - and probably wasn't ever - the money to pay for the RWS, along with everything else. I don't doubt the bona fides of those involved up to SO1 and possibly 1*. But those in Defence Resources and involved in the PR11 process will have been all too aware of the scale of the deficit and the implications of not hitting the fiscal numbers - and this made all plans, include the RW uplift speculative.

My best guess - and it is no more than informed guesswork - is that the Puma Mk 2 programme will be binned and the Pumas retired, focusing on Chinooks for SH with the Merlins off to CHF, which I (perhaps naively) expect to survive in some form. Reductions to the new build Chinook order will be easy to rationalise if you introduce the following phrases:

- "Reduced operational posture in Afghanistan as part of a phased transition to Afghan security forces"

- "Increased burden sharing with NATO and EU allies allows us to..."

- "Increased reliability leads to enhanced availability as a result of investment in Project JULIUS..."

I'd also not be too surprised if the Chinooks were turned over to AAC as over the next decade the lower rank structure will result in savings (and though they're small, we'll take any we can find.)

More importantly it starkly highlights that there is absolutely nothing 'strategic' or 'security' related about this review as RWS present the Treasury with a viable plan out to 2030-2040.

Amen to that. From what I hear, SDSR is being done too quickly to be strategic, hence the reason that there's effectively going to be a 12 month extension in the form of the "Defence Reform Unit"to work out how the hell to actually implement the review - not due to report until September 2011, about the time that most of us though that an SDSR done properly would report in the first place. Oh well, roundabouts/swings.

Back to the cricket!

S41

[Lyneham Lad]

RAF faces tough choices over future air transport fleet (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/31/346672/raf-faces-tough-choices-over-future-air-transport-fleet.html)

If the UK's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) is all about "tough choices", then the Royal Air Force's transport aircraft fleet provides a striking example of the dilemma now facing the nation.

With its objective being to deliver massive departmental savings, the Ministry of Defence says: "Work has been set in hand to review all major equipment and support contracts to ensure the future programme is coherent with defence needs and can be afforded."

Chief of the air staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton has voiced his desire to emerge from the process with a more balanced service, and warns that "platform-level" cuts will be a likely consequence of government-enforced cost savings.

"My aim is to come out of the SDSR with two fast-jet, two helicopter and two transport types," he says, referring to the project's expected 10- to 15-year period of regard.

See above link for the full and interesting article.

[vecvechookattack]

2 Fast Jet...? Typhoon & F35
2 Rotary....? Chinook & Merlin
2 AT..........? A400 & FSTA


No mention of training aircraft? Are they safe? Tucano ? Grob ? Hawk?

[Wrathmonk]

No mention of training aircraft

Under MFTS will they be contractor owned (and therefore 'off the books') or military owned?

And whilst the article focused on the AT fleet I couldn't see mention of the MRA4 either .....

Selective editing by the journalist I suspect.

[Ivan Rogov]

We should run a book, my guess FWIW is that we (RAF) will end up with -

Typhoon
GR4 (reduced Sqns)
Sentry (4 airframes)
Hercules
A400M (will it replace Hercules eventually?)
C-17
A330
MRA4
Chinook

Loose

F3 (almost gone?)
Harrier
JSF
Sentinel
VC-10
Tristar
Rivet Joint
Puma
Merlin (to navy)
Reaper (on leaving AFG)
Sea King (is SARH lives)

Navy loose the Carriers/JSF, a couple of amphibious ships, Sea King, RM absorbed into Army. Get RAF Merlins.

Army, not too sure? Loose lots of tanks, leave Germany and 25% reduction of manpower post AFG. Get to retain many UORs from AFG (vehicles, weapons, tech, etc.)

No offense meant to any of the services, I'd be interested to hear different view points :confused:

[Joe Black]

Typhoon
Harrier - then JSF
Sentry(min frames)
C-130J - then A400M
C-17
Chinook
Merlin
Reaper
Sentinel
RJ
FSTA

And that's the lot for me!!

Poss keep GR4 till 2015 at min number of frames, bin Puma,MRA4,VC10 and sooner rather than later,:ugh: Tristar.

[ORAC]

I'll forecast the following:

Typhoon - 5/6 sqns (fuzzy, mix with F-35B may change, see below)

GR4 - replaced by F-35B + UAV (Global Hawk variant or Taranis?) for both FAA for the carriers and RAF Strike - mix with above TBD.

Sentry/Sentinel - updated to replaced MRA4 and, eventually, R1/RC135

C-130J - replaced by A400M
C-17

Chinook - expand RAF force as heavy lift; other SH roles given to AAC.
Merlin - all passed to RN

VC10/Tristar - replaced by direct buy of 10 FSTA, other 4 sold to French to replace their KC-130F to support the Force de Frappe.

[Party Animal]

Ivan - your not an AEO by any chance, are you?

Lose - cease to have.
Loose - not longer held by bonds or restraint!! :sad:

[Grimweasel]

Imagine for a minute that we went the way of New Zealand -and we bin ALL of our fast jets! I mean, worked for them; lets just support the Army with 'Reaper' and A400M with some RW assets (Chinook). 'We' have 84 F15s sat at RAF Lakenheath courtesy of the USAFE - they'd act as air defence should we need it. Who needs fast air anyway when all we will be doing for the foreseeable future is peacekeeping ops with a big Euro Force?

Think the unthinkable!! :E

The country is broke- and you can expect rampant inflation and sovereign debt default within 36 months I think (as the MPC really wants inflation to inflate our way out of debt, despite what they release in their minutes - crying wolf!!) - why else would quite a few Goldman's bankers I know of be buying Physical gold - not ETFS or funds, but actual coins and bullion and storing it in the garden/home?? Who bails out the West's Governments when all the toxic crap they still hold, turns sour? God?

Some still fail to fully understand the true mire we are all in thanks to financial weapons of mass destruction peddled by unsuspecting banks in the last decade. Has China been planning all this over the past century or are they just as buggered as the West - the next decade could tell...:{

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

If the axe comes down on VC10 which it surely will. What will replace it in MPA in the short term?

[Ivan Rogov]

PA good point well made, I lose!

No not an AEO just prone to bad spooling, unfortunately spell checker just tells me how to spell the wrong words correctly :ouch:

OTTB I had no idea the 10 was filling in for nimrod :}

[vecvechookattack]

If the axe comes down on VC10 which it surely will. What will replace it in MPA in the short term?

Nothing will replace it. We don't need an MPA capability

[Jayand]

Hmm, perhaps he meant the hard fought for outpost in the South Atlantic.

[ORAC]

Nothing will replace it. We don't need an MPA capability

If you were airborne out of MPA in a Typhoon and the weather suddenly clamped, against the forecast, and your only available options were to divert to Chile or hold for a couple of hours - you might think differently.

Not everyone can just land in car park or on a passing freighter......

[Ivan Rogov]

What are the chances of using the Herc, are the wings plumbed on the Js?

[Ken Scott]

The wings can take external tanks but not a refuelling pod. Besides, the Js can't be expected to fill every 'capability holiday'. We're already doing the UK long range SAR while the MRA4 works up, we can't take over from the VC10s as we have our own job to do.

And alledgedly we're out of service in 2015 anyway.

[Squirrel 41]

Ok, it's less than six weeks away, so here's my 0.02....

UK QRA and MPA QRA
3 or 4 Sqns of Typhoon and 1 OCU. Total active airframes c. 65 of 105 long term (Tranche 2/Tranche 3a) fleet. Tranche 3b dead. AMRAAM sufficient, Meteor integration completed but procured to stores if the contract is tight enough to make it more expensive to bin than to procure. Otherwise, stick with AIM-120 and ASRAAM. 2 Sqns + OCU at CGY, 1 or 2 at Kinloss; maintain MPA. Close Leu and Leeming unless A6 hub becomes J6 hub.

FW manned Strike Reconnaissance
Harrier retired in 2010. Close Cottesmore & Wittering.
GR4 fleet reduced to 4 Sqns + OCU with firm OSD of 2020/22 when replaced by Dave-C (F-35C) force of c. 75 airframes. GR4 to continue to provide 1 Sqn in Afghanistan to provides RAPTOR and CAS in rotation; Storm Shadow retained for strategic conventional strike. Marham closed, Lossie as GR4 hub.

UAV
Predator / Reaper retained whilst support to Afghan ops. Core funding as UK owned operation from 2016/17. Probably remains collocated with USAF at Creech.

ISTAR
E-3D component reduced to min airframes for NATO. Potential to pool airframes with France and NAEWF. Navigator position eliminated with cockpit upgrade.

Sentinel / ASTOR retained, explore UK cost sharing with the NATO ground surveillance pool.

RJ - three airframes from 2014ish.

King Air / Shadow? Who knows?

Waddo stays.

Transport AAR
C-17 x 6
C-130K and C-130J to be replaced by 22 x A400M
FSTA PFI to be scrapped. 10 x A330K to be procured conventionally over longer timescale to 2017 to replace VC-10 and TriStar. Excess capacity to be shared with France / NATO. BZN remains as sole AT/AAR hub.

32[TR] Sqn? No idea, but unlikely to be retained. Depends how much Cabinet Office and the Departments want to retain it. Northolt retained, but with increased commercial operations.

SH
All SH transferred to AAC by 2016
Puma Mk 2 binned, Benson closes.
48 Chinook HC2/HC2A to be retained after Project Julius.
Merlin HC3 to CHF.

Maritime
Depends on future of Trident / SSBN. If SSBN binned, then MRA4 probably toast. Else, MRA4 to be focussed on ASW/ASuW and long-range SAR; Dept of Transport to provide inshore SAR cover commercially and DEFRA to provide fisheries patrol / EEZ patrol.

RAF Regiment
Sadly, probably for amalgamation into British Army. Honnington to Catterick?

Flying Training
Stop Nav training, and send FJ training to NFTC. Close Valley, Linton and some elements of Cranwell. MFTS binned. BFTS retained, UASs probably binned too.

Does this about cover it? RAFAT and BBMF to be retained. Would also bin the Groups and move a (much smaller) Air Command to Scampton. High Wycombe to become a posh housing estate.

S41

[Martin the Martian]

Very well thought out, Squirrel, and I would agree with most of your conclusions. The only points I disagree/add to with are:

GR4 fleet reduced to 60 aircraft, with three squadrons+OCU;

Shadow to replace Northolt Islanders;

32 Sqdn FW fleet replaced by 4-6 leased biz-jets;

Nav training to 750 NAS at Culdrose;

Retention of FJ training at Valley.

[NURSE]

My thoughts

Regt to loose 2 Sqns

Hercules to be replaced By A400m cheaper than refit and contract cancellation. (Brize Norton)

FSTA hopefully PFI canceled and A330K's procured and sorted out. (Brize Norton)

Harrier to RN and its replacement

Tornado Scrapped nil replacement

Typhoon Tranche 3 procured and full swing role developed (RAF Conningsby/Leeming)

Sentry reduce by 3 airframes(airframes convert to rivet joint) (RAF waddington)

Nimrod MR4 no change (RAF waddington)

Chinook HC2 fleet standardised upgraded to CH47F (RAF Odiham)
Chinook HC3 fleet Standardised upgraded to CH47F (RAF Odiham)
Puma upgrade scrapped along with puma
Merlin transfared to RN and maritimised

shadow no change

[Sook]

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1BC4B53A-FEB5-49CB-8577-78D1AD1502FC/0/DP10_0098_004.JPG

So Mr MacKay, tell me how this Canadian Defence Force works....

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | British and Canadian Defence Ministers meet (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/BritishAndCanadianDefenceMinistersMeet.htm)

[minigundiplomat]

My thoughts,

RAF

Tornado GR4 phased out over 2 years, replaced with Typhoon.

F18/F35 dependant on carriers/RN

Rivet Joint/Sentinal/UAV's expanded until 2015 - then held at existing level from that point.

Nimrod - Phased out.

Sentry - Reduced in number, possibly phased out.

C130 - Replaced by A400M if it ever arrives.

Tristar/VC10 - Replaced by Future Tanker PFI on a reduced scale.

C17 - Retained. Possibly an extra 1 or 2 to cover A400M delays.

Merlin - Not sure. If RM goes to Army, it may stay RAF to keep SH Force intact. Otherwise, to CHF.

Puma - Phased out.

Chinook - Retained. Upgraded to Julius, not sure the extra 22 will ever arrive. I would guess at an extra 8-12.

RAF Regt - Retained. However, I would guess at a cull post 2015 when the current high tempo FP commitment in the stan folds.

Navy

Carriers - Either cancelled, or shared with FN. F35 unlikely.

Trident - 3 boats instead of 4. Capability 'holidays' accepted.

RM - Hmmm, could be absorbed into Army, and CHF disbanded. However, I can't really see much in the way of financial saving there, so feel RM will continue.

Army

Heavy Armour - Phased out. Brigade level cut.

Artillery - Reduced in number, with air assault/RM batteries safest.

AAC - Apache safe. Wildcat, again Hmmm. I would guess at yes, but in reduced numbers.

Infantry - No change.

SF - No change. Possibly expansion of SFSG.

Logistics - Possible scaling down of manpower/vehicle numbers, leaning.


All 3

Severe axe taken to senior officers. More jointery at top level, about the same at lower levels to avoid duplication. Less staff appointments in HQ's.

Pensions - up to 3% contributory, with those still on AFPS 75 having to transfer on promotion. Stricter, but more generous T's & C's.

Promotion - Less of. Possibly more devolution to Unit commanders such as the Army already has, across all 3 services.

[Melchett01]

Pensions - up to 3% contributory, with those still on AFPS 75 having to transfer on promotion. Stricter, but more generous T's & C's.

Which is pretty much what I am hearing, namely a new pension that will make 05 look positively generous. And whilst they won't be able to force people on to the new scheme, and change in ToS e.g. promotion, assimilation or re-engagement will be accompanied with a transfer to the new scheme.

If correct, I see the net result of this being several-fold:

A lot of older personnel on 75 scheme will refuse promotion etc and will leave at next option point;

Those coming into the service on in their early years with a 'career' ahead of them won't miss what they have never had and will carry on, albeit with stricter pension terms i.e contributory, preserved pensions only or vastly reduced payouts from 20 / 22 yr point vice 16 / 18 yr point.

Coupled with more people being taken on short non-pensionable engagements, the Armed Forces demographics will change, making them a lot younger and the Forces more of a 'first career' rather than a job for life for the vast majority, which will gradually reduce MOD pension liabilities over time.

[NURSE]

As for the Army

Heavy armour will be cut the MBT's demise has been forecast since 1989 and proved wrong. Same
Loss of 4 Cavalry regiments and
maybe 5 Inf Bns including

Gurkhas taken over by Sultan of Brunei
and to push the NI peace process forward the Royal Irish regt , Irish Guards and Parachute regiment

Lynx replacement cancelled
AS90 and Light gun replaced by M777

TA slashed by 75%

Navy

1 carrier completed
1 completed as LPH
Ocean, Illistrious and Ark Royal sold or scrapped
LPD's 1 on long term refit
LPD(A) no change
Point class RoRo sold to comercial interest.

Sub fleet reduced to 6 astute and 3 Vanguard

Mine Hunters
fleet halved

6x Type 45
6 new frigates to replace type 22/23
6 Corvette/Lt Frigate to replace 22/23

river patrol ships no change
Survey fleet endurance not replaced

RM become a Land asset
CHF merlin
lynx cancelled
6 merlins converted to AEW

SF
SAS and SBS merged
SRS And Raiding support regt amalgamated

[NURSE]

Minigun diplomat why bin Nimrod MRA4? yes the chances of it having to chase russian subs is probably nil but it brings so much more to the party in its secondry roles. Most of the mission systems are proven and the crews are working up.

[Wrathmonk]

Commenting on other's views ....

.... Agree on the reduced (but not deleted) GR4. If its Lossie vs Marham I suspect Lossie will go into care and maintenance pending F35 decision as Marham has the Depth facility.

.... No change to Regt TFN. Should AFG end in 2015 then reduced in subsquent PRs (as will Infantry).

.... JFH will go. Fullstop. Transfer to the RN saves nothing. Sadly that may mean the carriers will go as well.

And with my barrack room lawyer hat on couldn't the (refusal of) 'enforced' pension change on promotion/service extension effectively be seen as constructive dismissal, particularly as we have no contract in the first place? Where's the ex F4 driving lawyer when you need him??

[minigundiplomat]

NURSE,

above is not a comment on what I hope happens, or for what reason. The above post was a guestimate of what is likely to happen.

Re Nimrod, I know the roles to which you allude very well. How do you assign them a value and justify them on a balance sheet?

If that proves difficult, or is seen as less valuable than something else then I suspect you'll be waving goodbye to it after October.

Don't like it mate, but that's the way things are shaping up.

[NURSE]

I love the expectation the treasury has after each deployment ends there is an expectation of a "peace dividend" speking to a Rock Ape that dividend will include some of the best bits of kit the infantry has like the Minimi, AGL & UGL , marksman rifle and Jakal's.

I'm not so sure of your assessment on Nimrod i think its value added is well recognised and given some of the other platforms/projects I've heard are for chop it retains a good chunk of ISTA capability.

[Squirrel 41]

NURSE,

I love the expectation the treasury has after each deployment ends there is an expectation of a "peace dividend" speking to a Rock Ape that dividend will include some of the best bits of kit the infantry has like the Minimi, AGL & UGL , marksman rifle and Jakal's.

The issue with Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) is a known problem, and has been understood as such for many years. A cornerstone of the system was an understanding that the MoD budget is scaled for peacetime operations and training, and that combat operations and specific spending are funded from the Treasury Reserve. This was eroded over a number of years, but the main point to take away is that UORs were never funded as core capability unless the MoD found the money from somewhere else to pay for them.

Does this mean that I want to go to war without the UORs? Obviously not. But what our over-reliance on UORs actually shows is that the conventional procurement system is dysfunctional. I (guess, I don't know) that the rebaselining of capability of bringing UOR capabilities into core will be one of the most difficult elements of the SDSR process. Good luck to all involved....

S41

[harrier123]

Any idea when the possible pension changes are likely to come into effect? I am due a promotion Mar next year. I am on AFP75 and would like to stay on that. I think if we only have to put 3% towards our pension then we will have done well in today's world.

[NURSE]

The issue with Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) is a known problem, and has been understood as such for many years. A cornerstone of the system was an understanding that the MoD budget is scaled for peacetime operations and training, and that combat operations and specific spending are funded from the Treasury Reserve. This was eroded over a number of years, but the main point to take away is that UORs were never funded as core capability unless the MoD found the money from somewhere else to pay for them.

Does this mean that I want to go to war without the UORs? Obviously not. But what our over-reliance on UORs actually shows is that the conventional procurement system is dysfunctional. I (guess, I don't know) that the rebaselining of capability of bringing UOR capabilities into core will be one of the most difficult elements of the SDSR process. Good luck to all involved....



I hope SDR10 will address the procurment issue once and for all (not holding my breath though). The other thing needed is to rapidly improve the way lessons learned are implemented and scalings/doctrines adapted. The UOR system should stay.

[StopStart]

I wouldn't be surprised if absolutely cock all of substance is announced at the end of October. A few broad brush statements but that'll be it. There simply hasn't been a realistic amount of time devoted to this. Reckon we won't see hard "facts" announced until into the new year.

[Squirrel 41]

Stoppers,

What will be annouced is the equipment funding profile for the next decade and the budget to 2015-16. You can't do this without a plan of how to meet it given the scale of the cuts even a 15% headline reduction would require - a result of the massive unfunded liabilities in the existing programme. So I'm confident that they'll have to outline something reasonably crunchy, including the overall personnel numbers - a key cost driver.

Nurse wrote:

I hope SDR10 will address the procurment issue once and for all (not holding my breath though).

Don't we all! :ugh: But real changes will require changes in the requirements community as well as sorting out the "issues" with DE&S - which I think is probably more sinned against than sinning. And no, I'm not at ABW; but if you're given an unimplementable plan, it shouldn't be a surprise if you can't implement it.... :hmm:

S41

[2Planks]

Harrier123, like you I smell the coffee on pension changes, I wonder what the reaction of AF Pay review Body would be. IIRC they reduce our salary to represent the contributions that we would have had to pay. So 3 % contribution = 3% pay rise recommendation?

[Jimlad1]

Having looked after the UOR process for a while, I think its one of the best parts of the DE&S - it does a great job. While a lot of people see it as a means of correcting shortfalls which should have been funded, I think its also been very good at meeting requirements which never could have been anticipated because they might involve kit bought via UORs and using equipment & TTP changes, which in turn people found that an enhancement would make even better.

My real concern is the UOR to Core figure - by my reckoning we've got roughly 2 brigades of kit at UOR TES levels - not all of this is great for wider operations - (one reason UORs are so fast is that you know the exact parameters of the operating environment, which isn't the case with wider equipment programme). This means that post HERRICK we either have to integrate it all into service, which will cost a lot of money to not only kit out these brigades, but also establish proper holdings and supply chains, and kit for the total deployable force.

If we're not going to kit the army as a whole up to UOR TES standard, then we need to ask what is the point of the wider number of brigades -we'll essentially end up with a 'home and away' team, with varying levels of capability.

The problem is that to my knowledge, the funding isn't there to bring the UORs into core, so what do we want to stop funding in order to keep the capability that we've acquired over the last few years (e.g. Predators etc).

[Finningley Boy]

UK QRA and MPA QRA
3 or 4 Sqns of Typhoon and 1 OCU. Total active airframes c. 65 of 105 long term (Tranche 2/Tranche 3a) fleet. Tranche 3b dead. AMRAAM sufficient, Meteor integration completed but procured to stores if the contract is tight enough to make it more expensive to bin than to procure. Otherwise, stick with AIM-120 and ASRAAM. 2 Sqns + OCU at CGY, 1 or 2 at Kinloss; maintain MPA. Close Leu and Leeming unless A6 hub becomes J6 hub.


I'm not sure I follow the logic of closing Leuchars, which has a HAS complex, and moving the Typhoons to Kinloss?:confused:

FB

[Jayand]

And what use are HAS sites nowadays? LGB straight through the middle good night!

[Jayand]

Harrier not wanting to piss on your bonfire but you might want to re- evaulate that promotion in March come the end of October.

[Biggus]

Stoppers - you are pretty much correct when you say:

"I wouldn't be surprised if absolutely cock all of substance is announced at the end of October. A few broad brush statements but that'll be it. There simply hasn't been a realistic amount of time devoted to this. Reckon we won't see hard "facts" announced until into the new year......"

In fact that is the official line. From what has been released recently, open source, it would appear that the SDR will announce the big picture stuff, and the Defence Reform Unit has until Sep 2011 to turn that into detailed policy. Output from the DRU will be on a drip feed basis rather than nothing until Sep 2011 and then everything at once. Even then, policy announced by Sep 2011 might take some time to impliment....

See page 19 para 6.....

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-05592.pdf

[Squirrel 41]

FB

I'm not sure I follow the logic of closing Leuchars, which has a HAS complex, and moving the Typhoons to Kinloss?

The HAS complex is essentially obsolete - indeed, 56(R) and then 43(F) operated from the flightline at Leuchars on the technical site with the jets in the big hangars. The basic point is that Kinloss is 100nm up-"threat" and there's no point in keeping two full bases for 2 small Sqns as well as ISK for the (tiny) MPA force.

Given the MPA footprint already at ISK/EGQK compared with the much smaller requirements for QRA, then the operational logic of ISK is clear. Leuchars would become Dundee St. Andrews International Airport, but it would be worth paying for the retention of the RHAG / barrier as a Wx div.

I loved Leuchars - brilliant people, great place - so it hurts like hell to suggest it goes; but needs must. I'll raise a glass to 111(F)'s lonely northern vigil with the mighty swing-wing flick-knife of death, but they've proved that northern QRA can been done with a single Sqn (and I know it sucks, people...). Needs must, I'm afraid.

S41

[Finningley Boy]

The HAS complex is essentially obsolete - indeed, 56(R) and then 43(F) operated from the flightline at Leuchars on the technical site with the jets in the big hangars. The basic point is that Kinloss is 100nm up-"threat" and there's no point in keeping two full bases for 2 small Sqns as well as ISK for the (tiny) MPA force.

Given the MPA footprint already at ISK/EGQK compared with the much smaller requirements for QRA, then the operational logic of ISK is clear. Leuchars would become Dundee St. Andrews International Airport, but it would be worth paying for the retention of the RHAG / barrier as a Wx div.

I loved Leuchars - brilliant people, great place - so it hurts like hell to suggest it goes; but needs must. I'll raise a glass to 111(F)'s lonely northern vigil with the mighty swing-wing flick-knife of death,

I've probably not been as keen keeping up with the present culture of Military speak, but to me a lot of what you've endeavoured to put, by way of explanation, is utter "in the know" jargon. I've no idea what an MPA footprint or an ISK is? Or how an ISK can be described as possessing any kind of logic. But anyway, to decypher, I trust ISK/EGQK is meant to be Kinloss (why not just say that) MPA I've just worked out is Maritime Patrol?.. Yes! Again, why not just say it. But apart from all that, the question over the HAS "Hardened Aircraft Shelter" is that they are there and could always have been breeched by a big enough bomb. As for the Nimrod MRA4, I wouldn't be too surprised to find it operating from Waddington, if it survives the review at all. Moving the Typhoons to Kinloss would be a needless exercise for the sake of about 70 miles or so.

And anyway they would need to be a little more central these days with the concerns over terrorist hijackings of airliners. Quite simply, there is no pressing need to move the Typhoons away from Leuchars. I think it;s a possibility that Kinloss could in fact become the R.A.F. Base that becomes a garrison for Army units returning from Germany, along with Cottesmore. I can also see the remainder of the Harrier Force moving back to Yeovilton, with the Naval emphasis to the fore. Then Wittering can also house returning Army units. I can see the Tornado GR4 being reduced over time and disappearing earlier than planned. As for the F35, I think this is the hardest thing to second guess. They could regard it as a Harrier/ Tornado replacement? Then of course there is Taranis? I would ask what the possibility is of any of these becoming a cheaper alternative to Trident? Something which I think Dr. Liam Fox is going to need to think far more deeply about.;)

FB

[Ivan Rogov]

There was a thread running earlier this year on RAF basing options

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/403264-three-more-airbases-close-3.html

interesting to see if our opinions have changed.

P.S. RAF is Royal Air Force :p

[The B Word]

Project TARANIS is a technology demonstrator aimed at giving us technological options in around 15 years time (2025). That is around GR4's planned out of service date. Bringing it in earlier would result in a rushed, immature and possibly misunderstood capability which I suggest that we want to avoid.

The B Word

[Wrathmonk]

along with Cottesmore

And what happens to the contractor run 'Depth' lines at Cottesmore? If you have to close one base surely the best option, regardless of whether the future of Harrier is Dark Blue or Light Blue, is to move whats left of the force to Cottesmore and close Wittering as an Air Base. Sure the couple who own the very big house on the centre line of Wittering will be more than happy ....;)

[Squirrel 41]

FB

You're missing my point - Leuchars is in comparatively the wrong place vs Kinloss and it is probably more valuable as real estate. I'd be astonished if there were three RAF bases in Scotland post review, and with Lossie pencilled in for JSF, and given the investments made at Kinloss for MPA ops, it makes more sense to close Leuchars.

And anyway, Leuchars' runway has just been expensively redone which is always a leading indicator for imminent closure.... :hmm:

Wrath

You're assuming that Harrier survives. I can't see why it will under the current circumstances, so if it goes the depth line goes with it too.

S41

[NURSE]

The Bases vacated will be useful to house the Army units brought back from Germany. Since they will mostly be Light role without heavy armour bases at Leuchars and Kinloss/Lossiemouth are fine. there is 1 Brigade accomadated in Scotland. Leeming, Cottesmore,Marham there's another one in England.

[Jayand]

Having a HAS complex never saved St Mawgan!
Post SDR there won't be three RAF bases imo, Lossie proposed future base for F35 and has two runways, named possible virgin galaxy space port (large income). Kinloss, one runway loads of geese! Leuchars needs lots of updating.
Crucially kinloss and lossie are in the solid constituancy of SNP MP's which cynically says to me that the tories won't give a toss about shutting one/two of them!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Sorry if this has already been done elsewhere, but could we start a list of which RAF airfields are considered safe from closure? It may not take long to compile this list...I offer Valley, Brize and Waddington for starters.

[Wrathmonk]

S41

I'm assuming nothing - just questioning the validity (i.e. cost) of a 'move the Harriers to Yeovilton' statement;). Sadly, I suspect you are right and JFH will fold early. Personally I'd rather see it reduced to a single joint sqn, with an embedded Training Flight, and stick with its original OSD. That way there is a fighting chance one carrier will survive and that all the FAA chaps filling their boots with deck landings in the States won't be totally wasted.

TofD

I'd add Northolt and Honington to your list. Those up for the chop will be all those that have recently had the married quarters or Messes renovated (that will be a small list then;)).

[Squirrel 41]

ToD

Absolutely safe?

Boulmer + 1 CRC somewhere else
Brize Norton
Cranwell (DIOT / AWC)
Coningsby
Halton (?? Presumably NCO training)
Kinloss (MPA/SAR Coord/Northern Q)
Lossiemouth (GR4 / Dave)
Northolt (especially after property centralisation under MoDEL)
Shawbury
Waddington (ISTAR / AWC)
Wyton (DIS New Defence Intelligence hub for RAF Wyton: key.Aero, key.Aero (http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=380&thisSection=military:))

Policy choices
Valley / Linton / Church Fenton - not necessarily, depends on UKMFTS
High Wycombe - who needs Groups now, let alone after these cuts? Would prefer to see the streamlined remains of Air Cmd to somewhere central - eg Scampton. HW is very valuable real estate, as is Halton.
Odiham - to AAC?
Scampton - retains CRC, and could accommodate Air Command
Leeming & Honington will depend on A6 and Regiment respectively.

Unsafe, IMHO
Benson - Puma 2 unlikely to survive and Benson prime real estate.
Brampton - already slated for closure and sale in 2012
Henlow - lodger units able to be accommodated elsewhere
Marham / Leuchars - see previous posts

Just my 0.02

S41

[Squirrel 41]

Wrath,

I agree, it would be ideal. But we can agree that the Harrier's future is all about QE/PoW.

S41

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

S41,

Interesting - I hope you're right. I'm not convinced though that two Scottish bases will survive...

[Finningley Boy]

Kinloss (MPA/SAR Coord/Northern Q)
Lossiemouth (GR4 / Dave)
Northolt (especially after property centralisation under MoDEL)
Shawbury
Waddington (ISTAR / AWC)
Wyton (DIS New Defence Intelligence hub for RAF Wyton: key.Aero, key.Aero (http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=380&thisSection=military:))

Policy choices
Valley / Linton / Church Fenton - not necessarily, depends on UKMFTS
High Wycombe - who needs Groups now, let alone after these cuts? Would prefer to see the streamlined remains of Air Cmd to somewhere central - eg Scampton. HW is very valuable real estate, as is Halton.
Odiham - to AAC?
Scampton - retains CRC, and could accommodate Air Command
Leeming & Honington will depend on A6 and Regiment respectively.

Unsafe, IMHO
Benson - Puma 2 unlikely to survive and Benson prime real estate.
Brampton - already slated for closure and sale in 2012
Henlow - lodger units able to be accommodated elsewhere
Marham / Leuchars - see previous posts


I still don't get how you can be absolutely sure of what you think is safe and unsafe. You've already decided, seemingly, that the Northern QRA will be based at Kinloss. If this was so obvious from the outset, surely as far back as the 1950s this would have been seen, when it really mattered, or at least in the 1960s when the short legged Lightnings were holding the fort up north.

Would it not have made even more sense then to swap Kinloss and Leuchars around? put the Shackletons and latterly Nimrods at Leuchars and Lightnings, F4s, Tornadoes and so forth up at Kinloss!

FB

[Squirrel 41]

FB,

This is a rumour site and I've put my personal views forward to provoke debate. I don't work for the MoD and this is on the basis of a reasonably informed outsider.

As I said, having served at Leuchars, I'd be gutted to see it close, but given the other options in Scotland, it makes sense to me. If it doesn't make sense to you, then please explain why - the fact that something was or wasn't done in the 1950s & 60s doesn't seem especially relevant to now.

S41

[Finningley Boy]

Dear SQ,

I understand your suggestion for basing QRA aircraft at Kinloss rather than Leuchars was, as you point out, closer to the QRA threat. i.e. Russian aircraft transiting through the Iceland Faeroes Gap or wherever. This was a much greater and more pressing concern for those overseeing U.K. Defence strategy back in the 1960s and onwards until the 1990s. At that time, as I've mentioned earlier, the principal Fighter type used to address this matter were, as you'll be aware, English Electric Lightnings, until the somewhat longer legged Phantoms appeared from 1969, and then only as a result of a surplus of aircraft which the FAA no longer needed (something to do with a reduction in carriers I believe)

The point is the Lightnings had a very short range compared with anything before or since. But they were sent to Leuchars rather than what would have made much better sense at the time, Kinloss or Lossiemouth. So if Leuchars was considered far enough North to put Lightnings within reach of Soviet intruders then, well surely the much greater stride of the Typhoon would be satisfactory for dealing with the reduced, albeit resurgent number of Russian flights today.

There would indeed be some expense incurred surely by moving them all lock stock and Barrel just a few miles further up the road. Kinloss I imagine may more likely go, as the dwindling Nimrod numbers will probably be more logically accommodated at Waddington, if they survive the review at all. In which case, Kinloss may well become an Army Garrison for units returning from Germany along with at least Cottesmore.

The idea that it would be preposterous to have as many as 3 x R.A.F. stations in Scotland after the review is quite frankly another indication of the English mind set that Scotland is as foreign a country as Bangladesh. Rather than being a component part of the one country, United Kingdom.

Unfortunately, this kind of thinking suits the SNP nonsense as well.

But then again, you could be bang on the money!;)

Until October, we can only guess, just like the Daily Telegraph is fond of doing. Just so long as the Red Tops (there's a phrase for Lightning fans) don't have a bash at it as well! Or the next thing we'll be hearing is an emotional explosion about the Air Force being disbanded and Super Tucanos replacing Harriers, Typhoons and Tornadoes.:=

FB:E

[Jimlad1]

"The idea that it would be preposterous to have as many as 3 x R.A.F. stations in Scotland after the review is quite frankly another indication of the English mind set that Scotland is as foreign a country as Bangladesh. Rather than being a component part of the one country, United Kingdom."

The problem is though that if you look at where closures have ocurred, its almost exclusively in England in recent years. I'm struggling to think of the last RAF Flying station in Scotland that closed? While in the past this wasnt an issue, at a point where flying stations are very few in number and only going to get fewer, maintaining a large percentage of them north of the border is risky politically, as it puts otherwise safe seats at risk south of the border, and also strategically - what happens if Scotland goes independent and we lose several airbases.

While I appreciate that Scotland has a different economic set up to some degree from the wider UK, it has been heavily protected from defence cuts in recent years, and its time for them to share in the pain that English counties suffered with the loss of many flying stations over the last 15 years.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

The idea that it would be preposterous to have as many as 3 x R.A.F. stations in Scotland after the review


Sorry, who actually said that? Earlier posts simply said (I think!) that it's just very unlikely we'll have 3 RAF stations in Scotland after the review. That said, it would be preposterous to keep 3 RAF stations in Scotland at the expense of airfields in England, if only because the HQ will never move far from London and the English airfields will (probably) all be in the London/Bristol/Lincoln triangle. My personal guess? We'll lose at least one Scottish station, probably two, as well as quite a few in England.

I can't see Valley closing though - while it would be possible to move its functions elsewhere, it's already well set up for both FJ and SAR trg, and Anglesey is already on its knees having lost the aluminium factory.

[Squirrel 41]

FB,

Thank-you for your considered answer. No, I'm not taking a Scotland vs England position as a little Englander, merely that it will be considered in the Review as it is a political impact as well as an operational one. Agree that v short legged Lightnings must have made the range to 64N 001E "sporting" but I wasn't there and don't know.

The cost of moving the "stuff" is unlikely to take many years savings to pay off - and that's before any asset sales have taken place. We're going to end up with a smaller force with many fewer bases - the station overhead costs are going to be driven down on in no uncertain terms, so the sharing of services between Lossie and Kinloss makes them much more "efficient" (that word again! :hmm:) than either base plus Leuchars.

S41

[NURSE]

Lossie, Kinloss and Leuchars would be good bases for redeployed Light role Inf bns from Germany.

[Jayand]

Unless you liked drinking in the Abbey or owned a house near the centre or Forres!

[Finningley Boy]

Lossie, Kinloss and Leuchars would be good bases for redeployed Light role Inf bns from Germany.


Perhaps, but not all three, one only. In my humble opinion, that would be Kinloss. For my money, it's the most devoid of a role and will probably come out the other side of the review with nothing else but pongos to accommodate.

As long as the Government go ahead with purchasing as many 100 Typhoons, I'd have thought that 2 bases Coningsby and Leuchars would have been the logical choices for basing them all.

But again, who knows?

FB

[aw ditor]

Why put Pongos' into Kinloss when Fort George (just down the coast with ranges etc etc) is so sparsely populated?

[vecvechookattack]

I would say that both Kinloss and Lossie are both looking at being closed. With Nimrods, Tornado and Sea King all for the chop there will be no requirement for either of them.

Id have to say that despite sitting on top of the best run ashore in the South West, RAF St Mawgan has got to be shutdown. I can't believe that they managed to maintain the base despite selling the airfield.

[Biggus]

FB,

In terms of your historical debate with Squirrel 41 about fighter basing in the 60s, short legged Lightnings, etc...... One point to make is that Lossiemouth was RNAS Lossiemouth until 28 Sep 72, by which time you say the Phantoms had appeared. While this doesn't detract from your arguement about Kinloss vs Leuchars for Lightnings as such, I thought I would throw it into the mix for historical accuracy. :ok:


aw ditor

No doubt Fort George will have to be maintained as a historic building, however, I was under the impression that it is in pretty poor condition, and the Army would be keen to move out. Can't remember exactly where I heard that, probably from the cleaner...... In which case it must be true!





Generally, in terms of Scottish airbases, Leuchars is in a prime area for development, between Dundee and Edinburgh, and is valuable real estate. The exact opposite applies to Kinloss and Lossie. Leuchars already has a mainline railway station for the commuter crowd. Leuchars needs (I believe) a lot of money spending on it before Typhoon comes in, none of which (apart from the runway resurface) has yet been spend. The obvious conclusion from all of this..........?


Leuchars will stay open and one/both of Lossie/Kinloss will close! :ugh:

[Ivan Rogov]

I'm not convinced by the argument that 9 aircraft large aircraft wouldn't justify an air base. For a good few years Waddington only operated 7 Sentry, then 51 Sqn moved 3 R1s in and it was 10 for plenty more years. At that point the base was said to be almost full, since then they have taken 5 Sqn with 5 Sentinel etc. Isn't it full?
I can think of another base too which only operates 9 aircraft, red ones and they are small (OK 10). From a personal perspective I would prefer to be based at Waddo with the MRA4 however I don't think it's the right option for the aircraft, of course that is irelevant if it doesn't survive SDSR.

Would there be significant savings to basing all one type at a single station? e.g:
Lossie - GR4/4A
Coningsby - Typhoon, forget QRA north that is cold war dogma. Detach/deploy aircraft north if needed or scramble when your neighbours phone hours earlier telling you they have launched!
If pushed try and keep all types as close as possible to reduce costs, e.g:
Waddington - 1 Sqn of Typhoon
Kinloss - 1 Sqn of Tornado

I know basing options have been dominated by votes, golf courses and various fleet agendas in the past, but with things looking this tight our LEADERS must ensure that the ones we retain are based purely on what is best for the military, not the politicians.

[vecvechookattack]

I have to agree with you. I don't want to get into a crab bashing contest (Although I do enjoy it) it seems to me that when Culdrose is operating with close to 100 Aircraft and Yeovilton has over 100 aircraft then the RAF trying to maintain an active airfield with 10 small red aircraft just seems a complete waste of money. There will be plenty of arguments from the RAFAT team lovers claiming that they need the airspace to go up-tiddly-up but even if they conduct 3 sorties per day that is still only 60 movements per day..... Most airfields have managed that by mid-morning.

[LFFC]

It's not the number of aircraft based at an airfield that decides how busy it is - it's the number of runway movements that take place every day that really matters. The last time I flew into Culdrose it seemed like a sleepy hollow! Remember that the majority users of Scampton probably aren't the Reds.

[Spot 4]

The last time I went to RNAS Culdrose; I could not get out for days due to Fog. Whilst that could just as easy apply to many airfields, it appears that Culdrose has in excess of its fair share of foggy days during which nothing gets airborne. Perhaps that is why the home based aviators like it :cool:

[NURSE]

Last I heard Army was pulling out of Fort George due to expense of maintaining it. Scottish Heritage happy.
Maybe sell Leuchars and use money to refurbish Lossie and Kinloss as Infantry Barracks. Like the refurbishment of Aldershot by selling of a large chunk of the Garrison.
Why move the army into ex RAF camps I can't see the need to keep troops in Germany any more and I'm sure the Germans would be happy to see us leave.

[Squirrel 41]

NURSE noted:

I'm sure the Germans would be happy to see us leave.

The issues with getting out of Germany are complex AFAIK - the major problem is that a lot of cash is needed up front to restore the facilities to an acceptable standard before handing them back to the German govt - which is why BORONA - the project to scale back the remains of BAOR - has been hamstrung; it offers big savings in a little while, but needs up front cash now. BORONA is delivering some closures in Germany, though - IIRC 102 Logs Bde is going to Cosford (when/assuming technical training gets PFI'd to Saint Athan... :ugh:) and ARRC is or has moved to the former HQ PTC site at Innsworth (lucky them....).

Secondly, Germany is closer to large armoured training areas in Poland that Cavalry types have become fond of in recent years. Obviously that depends on the future of the armoured brigades and other training (eg Suffield / BATUS in Canada) but the main point is that this is a non-trivial task.

S41

[Finningley Boy]

In terms of your historical debate with Squirrel 41 about fighter basing in the 60s, short legged Lightnings, etc...... One point to make is that Lossiemouth was RNAS Lossiemouth until 28 Sep 72, by which time you say the Phantoms had appeared. While this doesn't detract from your arguement about Kinloss vs Leuchars for Lightnings as such, I thought I would throw it into the mix for historical accuracy. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Indeed I'm aware that Scimitars and Buccaneers clogged the tarmac/asphalt at Lossiemouth during the 1960s. However, a move to Lossiemouth by Lightnings wouldn't have been beyond the wit of those moving the chess pieces around the board. Simply swapping the name plates to say RNAS and RAF at the opposite ends then flitting to two gangs in opposite directions I shouldn't think would have been too much trouble. However, I take your point. That's another point as well, putting the Buccs and Scimitars at Leuchars would have made perfect sense for the occasion when, for example, Eagle, Victorious, Ark Royal or whatever, may have been docked in at Rosyth. As the beast chugged back out up the Forth, the Navy Jets could leap off from Leuchars, bank across the Golf Links and catch up with their floating Hotel. Job done!:ok:

FB

[ORAC]

The point about the 60-80s is that it was the depth of the Cold War - which could have turned hot.

The AD airfields were on the east coast to face the known threat across the North Sea: Leuchars, Leeming, Binbrook, Coningsy, Wattisham. They were not positioned for the QRA threat.

The difference in reaction time to get to the edge of the UKADR north of Saxa and Polestar was no more than 3-4 minutes, which with normal reaction of about 2 hours+ and a transit time of 1 hour wasn't a factor.

The main limiting factor was the readiness state and transit time for the tanker from Marham or Brize.

[rhajaramjet]

The tragedy about the current situation is that any government's top priority - Defence of the Realm - has become an 'also ran'. Surely this is the time to correct some of the appalling anomalies that currently exist.

For example, a maritime nation without any long range maritime air - how ludicrous. Apart from all the obvious maritime tasks, there are other key aspects - much is made about preserving the nuclear deterrent but what about its vulnerability? Elsewhere is a thread about Vanguards being shadowed and the Russians (and who knows who else) attempting to record their signatures. Without getting too detailed, MRA4 can cover much greater areas than any surface or subsurface platform in helping preserve the bomber's invisibility.

Then there's the QRA muddle. Although Russian long range patrol aircraft have been probing UK airspace in much greater numbers lately, seeing them off the patch is not the prime QRA raison d'etre these days. If you went to the last Winter Olympics you may have seen or perhaps heard about the Canadian CF18s sitting alert right there on the nearby base, instantly available in case of a 9/11 problem. What about London 2012? Indeed, what about London right now? No good the Typhoon getting to his target when it's already inside the M25, and how far could that target have travelled in the time taken for the Typhoon pilot to leap up from his armchair, scramble the jet and rush on down from the East Midlands? You do the math - it's about 70miles from mid-Channel to Big Ben, by the way.

And let's not forget that the UK has had a war on its hands in every decade since 1945. All of them, by their very nature, "come-as-you-are" events! Let's have no nonsense about 'useless Cold War weapons' - they served us well enough in the Falklands. It is just plain stupid to even attempt to plan for the next war, but that seems to be Dr Fox's aim. Our Nation's defences are in a parlous state. In 1957 we led the world in ground-breaking aerospace technology, all thrown away at a stroke; Dr Fox could just go down in history as Son of Sandys.

[Finningley Boy]

Then there's the QRA muddle. Although Russian long range patrol aircraft have been probing UK airspace in much greater numbers lately, seeing them off the patch is not the prime QRA raison d'etre these days. If you went to the last Winter Olympics you may have seen or perhaps heard about the Canadian CF18s sitting alert right there on the nearby base, instantly available in case of a 9/11 problem. What about London 2012? Indeed, what about London right now? No good the Typhoon getting to his target when it's already inside the M25, and how far could that target have travelled in the time taken for the Typhoon pilot to leap up from his armchair, scramble the jet and rush on down from the East Midlands? You do the math - it's about 70miles from mid-Channel to Big Ben, by the way.

And let's not forget that the UK has had a war on its hands in every decade since 1945. All of them, by their very nature, "come-as-you-are" events! Let's have no nonsense about 'useless Cold War weapons' - they served us well enough in the Falklands. It is just plain stupid to even attempt to plan for the next war, but that seems to be Dr Fox's aim. Our Nation's defences are in a parlous state. In 1957 we led the world in ground-breaking aerospace technology, all thrown away at a stroke; Dr Fox could just go down in history as Son of Sandys.

I couldn't agree more. However, I don't know if basing Typhoons, currently at Coningsby, any further south would address the problem of a hijacked airliner approaching London with a noticeaby faster response.

Coningsby is rather central, if we have a hijacked airliner approaching Manchester, for example, then what. Also, for reasons of not knowing quite what to do with defence spending and strategy post collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Government took the decision in the 'options for change' review to close down R.A.F. Wattisham as an Interceptor base. Then again, suicide hijackings were a thing of the future at the time.

FB:)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

a maritime nation without any long range maritime air - how ludicrous


Couldn't agree more!


if basing Typhoons, currently at Coningsby, any further south would address the problem of a hijacked airliner approaching London with a noticeaby faster response.

Coningsby is rather central, if we have a hijacked airliner approaching Manchester, for example


Though I think London will always be the intended target. Although admittedly New York isn't the capital city, it is the world's largest financial centre and had a world-famous landmark to use as a target on 9/11 therefore NY was deemed a suitably juicy target by Al Qaeda planners. There is nowhere comparable in the UK apart from London.

What we should have arranged to defend the capital against this threat is a brace of Sea Harriers based at London City...

[Jimlad1]

"What we should have arranged to defend the capital against this threat is a brace of Sea Harriers based at London City..."

Fool, you've uttered the SHAR word- now you're going to summon WEBF up and he'll bore us all to death again droning on about that plane :E

[LFFC]

Defence spending: thousands of troops to be cut (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7995646/Defence-spending-thousands-of-troops-to-be-cut.html)

Tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen face the axe after ministers concluded that reducing the number of uniformed personnel in the Armed Forces was the best way to save money.

:ugh:

According to the review, employing each uniformed serviceman was 50 per cent more expensive than employing an MoD civil servant, and twice as costly as the average civil servant. Many Armed Forces personnel carrying out administrative roles could be replaced by civilians, ministers were told.

What a brilliant, new, innovative idea!

[Melchett01]

So we're going to save money by reducing the numbers of military people and replace them with civilians.

Well that will be all right then, we'll basically become another arm of the civil service, clock in at 8 go home at 5, if it's not on the job sheet then it will be more than my job's worth to use my initiative to do it. Oh and I must have my NAAFI breaks and weekly round of golf. And as for op tours, well that's fine, just make them a year or 18 months to make best use of those few uniformed personnel that are left.

Unbelievable. We get rid of one set of clowns only for another to come marching in - it's like working in a circus. These idiots haven't got the brains they were born with. If nothing else, this has to be a clear demonstration of the need for all politicians aspiring to serve at Cabinet level having spent time in uniform. Maybe then when they have been on the receiving end of some god-awful decisions will they finally see what the average guy / girl in uniform is trying to make do with. I wonder if Mickey Mouse wears an MOD watch?

Increasing civilianization is not the answer. Getting rid of many of the buffoons up top sitting there riding out their 'careers' until their pension turns up and making no discernible contribution to ops would be a start; improving procurement so it's only half-arsed rather than the total abomination it is now might also help, as would our so called leadership removing it's collective head from its overly padded posterior and coming to visit reality once in a while.

And this evening was going so well. So much for not having a snifter tonight, I think I need one after reading that.

[Grabbers]

So which branches/trades are most under threat? Starter for 10? Bandsmen. A CD collection and portable speaker system in their stead.:E

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

I'm surprised there is no sniff of plans for another redundancy package whether voluntary or compulsory.

[LFFC]

Could this be the shortest-lived, single-service HQ ever?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49036000/jpg/_49036403_49036331.jpg

New Army's HQ Land Forces base is opened in Andover - 9 Sep 10 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-11240456)

[vecvechookattack]

My biggest fear concerns the rumours concerning pensions. Rumours of getting rid of the gratuity package as well as rumours concerning getting rid of AFP75 and 05 and creating a new one which we will all be forced to join.....I think I've stated this before but if they touch one penny of my pension then I'm off....

[Evalu8ter]

Vec,
That's probably the reason it's being rumoured; it's a lot cheaper to scare/p*ss people out of the Services rather than pay redundancy. I'm amused to see the Mil/Civvy debate again - haven't we just been through a press attack on the numbers of MoD CS? A lot of them were recruited to replace "expensive" servicemen in previous savings measures. They can't have it both ways....

Alledgedly SHARs at London City was suggested soon after 9/11, CAS at the time nearly had an embolism at the suggestion.....

[Sloppy Link]

There was a DIN/ABN/Memo or such like recently on this basically saying the rumours are just that. Existing pension arrangements remain.

[SRENNAPS]

Unbelievable. We get rid of one set of clowns only for another to come marching in

No Sh$t Shirlock……what did you expect?

Very sadly this Government is going to rip the Armed Forces (and other areas) to shreds to save money. This Party will pretty much be able to do what they want because they will always have the excuse to be able to blame the last Government for the mess the country is in (despite the fact that the rest of the free world is also in it). They will even be able to use this excuse to hide their own incompetence; very dangerous!

I think it was a very naïve belief to think that the Tories would be the saviour of the Armed Forces (And I have been a Tory all my life....but I think I understand the world and Politicians a bit better these days).

Apologies Melchett01, this is not a direct dig at your comments. It is just my perception of this Government and the naivety of the country.:ugh:

[Jetex_Jim]

In the talk of UK bases for the chop, no mention of RAF Mount Pleasant.

Is it a given that that this ongoing memorial to Mrs T must continue, at least until Lady Gaga drops off her perch?

[12 twists per inch]

Bye bye muscle mechanics. "with a jump feet together....leave"

[vecvechookattack]

This is an Old DIN I know but it gives you an idea of the redundancy packages which will become available


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

[Melchett01]

SRENNAPS,

I agree entirely. Over the years I have generally found myself more sympathetic to the Tories than any other party, but I have never really believed that their commitment to the Forces was any better than New Labour's. In fact, when it comes to Defence in the round, I find the Tories to be remarkably 2 faced. At least with Labour we knew we were on a hiding to nothing.

However, for Cameron et al to spend all their time in opposition hammering Labour for their performance and then to come in and within weeks start the open and systematic pulling apart of the Forces, it does rather stick in the throat. Making efficiency savings is one thing, but they are rapidly moving into the realm of dismantling the Forces' capability to effectively defend this country, its people and its interests. Look no further than Osborne's insistence that the capital costs for Trident come out of the Defence Vote; if he gets his way that will do nothing other than leave us with a capability based around a handful of SSBNs and the rest of the Forces as little more than a gendarmerie.

And quite frankly, hiding behind their 'its not our fault Guv' line is already growing tiring. I'd be a lot happier if they came out with the truth that they would rather spend the money on building lesbian gym facilities in Mongolia and various other 'worthy' causes in the name of international development than defending the population who put them in power. Unfortunately, actually getting to the crux of the problems of inefficiency, a bloated hierarchy looking for the next stripe / knighthood and appalling procurement is politically far harder than just chopping the bottom end of the foodchain.

[vecvechookattack]

Thousands of troops, sailors and airmen to be axed - report - Portsmouth Today (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Thousands-of-troops-sailors-and.6526541.jp?)

[minigundiplomat]

I wonder which end of the rank spectrum will bear the brunt of the cuts?

Apparently all 1500 Wg Cdr's have been summoned to a meeting to discuss the growing problem of excess corporal's. They will make reccommendations to the 300 odd Gp Capt's, but ultimately it will be the 100 odd Air Cdre's who will make the decision on how deep to cut into the OR's.

[The Old Fat One]

Just so I don't get flamed for sticking up for tories, please note I'm not a fan of any current political party...

However, it is intellectually incoherent to argue that other aspects of the public purse are being prioritised over defence, because it is simply not the case.

The BBC has a spending review service on line now - have a look and you will see that defence is towards the top of pile, with just the NHS and Education ahead of it. Everything else is facing minimum cuts of 25 percent.

Moreover, it matters not who is to blame for the global deficits we face...they are a fact of life, which have to be dealt with. Stephanie Flaunders latest blog has a link to very interesting acdemic report which argues quite convincingly that governments in general cannot react effectively to major crisis's because they don't really understand them, they can't control them and they can't get their heads round the necessary timescales for recovery (15 - 20 years). Thus they just lurch from one crisis/boom to another and call it the "economic cycle".

Another report in the Scotsman this week, by an eminent economist, argued that the general public don't have a scoobies at the size of the cuts that are coming, something I have posted on here several times already.

Hang on tight....

[SRENNAPS]

Melchett01, Good words. I could not have put it better myself.

Unfortunately, actually getting to the crux of the problems of inefficiency, a bloated hierarchy looking for the next stripe / knighthood and appalling procurement is politically far harder than just chopping the bottom end of the foodchain.

Oh, how sadly right you are:sad:

minigundiplomat:D:D:D

I miss the mob considerably, but I am so glad I had my career when I did. I just feel for those that remain in and join in the future. They will continue to give 150% commitment and loyalty, even knowing that the loyalty does not run both ways.:(:(

[red.zebra]

Typhoon crews (air & ground) starting to move into Leuchars from Monday.

Would expect Kinloss to close, GR4 binned before mid-life update, JSF to Lossie, would also be bad form to close an air base in a senior cabinet ministers (Menzies Campbell) constituency when it would be easier to stick the knife into an opposition MP

[Squirrel 41]

OFO

Agree with your analysis - BZ. But:

However, it is intellectually incoherent to argue that other aspects of the public purse are being prioritised over defence, because it is simply not the case.

Arguably with a flat in real terms budget, the NHS is getting priority over defence - which is probably what the majority of the public want. The outlier, of course, is the foreign aid budget (DFID) which will rise to £12bn p.a. or so, more than a third of the MoD budget - and approximately 10 times that of the Foreign Office. Priorities? :*

S41

[vecvechookattack]

The outlier, of course, is the foreign aid budget (DFID) which will rise to £12bn p.a. or so, more than a third of the MoD budget - and approximately 10 times that of the Foreign Office. Priorities?

Some would argue that to spend in the region of £37 Billion of public money on guns and bullets whilst only spending £12 Billion on trying to end poverty is balanced incorrectly. maybe the SDSR will redress that balance

[teeteringhead]

But we still give aid to a country with nuclear weapons (Pakistan) and one with a soace programme (India)!

Shurely shome mishtake ....... :ugh:

[Roadster280]

Some would argue that to spend in the region of £37 Billion of public money on guns and bullets whilst only spending £12 Billion on trying to end poverty is balanced incorrectly.

Indeed. Hopefully in future it will be $48bn on Defence, and a "mere" single billion in charity payments. If the extra $11bn paid for one new asset that saved one British Serviceman's life, it would be well spent. Why must so much money be given away when cuts are having to be made at home?

[Madbob]

What nobody seems to have taken notice of is the fact that the interest only payments on the national debt are over £35Bn! :sad::sad: That figure makes no allowance for paying any of the debt back.....it is just the annual interest.:{:{

Put it another way - the interest payments alone are in excess of the country's WHOLE defence budget.

With black holes like this to fill as NuLabour's legacy to the country (also remember which govt was in power when Op Granby and Op Herrick kicked off, and that it was GB who failed miserably to fund the costs right from the start) it really leaves the Coalition Govt little option but to cut, and to cut hard to get the debt under control.

Like anyone with a credit card that has been taken to the limit, there are two options.....tighten one's belt and pay it off (asap) or declare oneself bankrupt and face the consequences.....

Rant over!

MB

[minigundiplomat]

MB,

if you're referring to GB's tortuous tenure- it was Telic, not Granby.

[LFFC]

Sat 11/9/10 - Trident missile defence system under threat again as cuts plans drawn up (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7996647/Trident-missile-defence-system-under-threat-again-as-cuts-plans-drawn-up.html).


The National Security Council will discuss plans for a £20 billion Trident replacement (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5661301/Trident-nuclear-deterrent-replacement-under-review.html) on Friday – with the debate said to include whether the replacement system should go ahead at all, not just how it is funded.


Senior defence chiefs are understood to be split over whether Britain should retain a submarine-based strategic nuclear deterrent or opt for a cheaper alternative.


Looks like this really is gonna hurt!


The Sunday Telegraph also understands that serious consideration is now being given to axing the Royal Navy's £5bn carrier programme, with small cheaper alternatives being proposed.

If the carriers are axed sources have revealed that the £9bn programme to buy the Joint Strike Fighter will either be cut in its entirety or see the numbers of aircraft bought severely reduced.

[endplay]

Who do we, and the rest of the world, owe all this money to? Can't we all form a coalition of the damned and declare war on them?

Seriously, who do we owe the money to?

[LFFC]

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt)

Government debt can be categorized as internal debt, owed to lenders within the country, and external debt, owed to foreign lenders. Governments usually borrow by issuing securities, government bonds and bills.

The trouble is that, if the government sells too many bonds, it may not be able to honour them when they mature. When you get that far, you end up like Greece.

On 27 April 2010, the Greek debt rating was decreased to BB+ (a 'junk' status) by Standard & Poor's amidst fears of default by the Greek government.

[Squirrel 41]

Who do we, and the rest of the world, owe all this money to?

Some to foreign governments, but much of it is owned by the financial sector, usually pension funds.

T

[Al R]

A Gilt is nothing more than an IOU, and everywhere these days, IOUs are being renegotiated. Talk is rife of a new wave of QE this Autumn, and there will be a flood of new UK Gilt issued over the next decade or so, to fund a national debt that is already nigh on £1 trillion (expected to increase to £1.6 trillion in 5 years).

As suggested by LFFC,all things being equal, higher supply leads to lower prices. If that happened, not only would the returns from Gilt bomb, but as Squirell suggests, the performance of almost every funded UK pension would be affected (so many private funds are rebalancing now though – has yours? :ok: ). And I like the look of the new M&G Index Linked Corporate Bond fund, (launching on the 16th..).

But, despite all the nightmare scenarios, Britain's sale of £8bn-worth of gilts at the end of June was almost twice oversubscribed. Why? Because three factors have emerged; one boosting demand and two restricting supply. The first is the Eurozone drama, which boosts the relative attractions of our Gilt to overseas investors compared to their tat, the second is the focus of the ConLibs now, to really tackle the public spending deficit (even Vince Cable seems to be getting warmed up, listening to him yesterday) and finally, there is the news last week, that public borrowing was a little lower than expected.

So.. this year, the DMO will only issue Gilt to the value of £165 billions rather than the £185 billions forecast in April whilst Gordon was still buying fluffy chairs at DCSF. On top of that, there are worries about interference in markets - in particular, Harry the Hun’s ban on naked short-selling. Finally, don’t forget that Gilt, since 1990, has returned 5.4%, compared to equities (roughly, 4.6%). People like that. Gilt, right now, is looking ok.

http://www.dmo.gov.uk/ (http://www.dmo.gov.uk/)

M&G taps into inflation fears with new bond fund | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6851QV20100906)

[vecvechookattack]

BBC News - Figures reveal cost of new aircraft carriers decision (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11274060)

[LFFC]

From the above newsclip:

Contracts worth about £1.25bn have been awarded for building two aircraft carriers even though the project may not go ahead, figures have revealed.

Mr Docherty, who represents the Rosyth dockyard, said: "These figures highlight that the carrier contracts don't just affect thousands of jobs here in Rosyth and on the Clyde or indeed just across Scotland, but in fact across the whole of the United Kingdom.

More than anything else, these figures highlight the true cost of the carriers. I would imagine that the whole cost of ownership associated with these 2 ships is far, far greater than the £5b headline figure; my guess is that it's simply unaffordable.

[BEagle]

How much of the foreign aid budget is being spent in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Or does it end up in some corrupt corner of Africa?

The National Health Service could certainly due with a serious audit. Just how much of my tax is being wasted on patching up brawling, drunken chavs or on teenage trollops overpopulating the world with their illegitimate spawn?

Education? Some belt-tightening needed as well. You should see what they use nowadays instead of chalk and blackboards......

[Al R]

Here you go then Beags; every 'little' helps?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11274851 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11274851)

< The coalition government has distanced itself from a pledge made by the previous Labour government to abolish hospital car park charges in England.>

[vecvechookattack]

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt autobiography: Fighting at the cutting edge - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7996621/Gen-Sir-Richard-Dannatt-autobiography-Fighting-at-the-cutting-edge.html?)

[NURSE]

BEagle
I totally agree much of Govts spending on the NHS International aid and education should be audited very closley. Unfortunatley Defence spending isn't a vote winner closing down some RAF station or disbanding a Squadron is just an abstract concept to most of the UK's population its only if its the RAF Squadron you or a member of your familiy is in or a Station that is on your doorstep that it becomes a reality. But try closing down a school or a hospital it means more to you're average voter. Hence the reason there has never been a full review of the NHS or education system as doing so is electoral suicide. And in the case of the NHS its long overdue.

[On_Loan]

BBC News - Speed of defence review 'could put operations at risk' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11306982)

In other news "visiting Pope is a Catholic".....

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

BBC News - Ministers may delay key decisions on Trident renewal (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11321861)

BBC News - MPs criticise MoD air tanker deal (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11316250)

Whilst the tanker PFI article tells us nothing we did not already know not sure the dark blue folk will find the potential Trident delay to their taste.

[NURSE]

depends on reasons why if the delay gives them another batch of Astutes & T26 frigate they may be happy with it

[ORAC]

Independent: Full Trident replacement or zero, says defence chief (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/full-trident-replacement-or-zero-says-defence-chief-2080727.html)

The outgoing head of the armed forces warned today that the Government might as well scrap Britain's nuclear deterrent if the decision is taken to downgrade it. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup said any lesser replacement for Trident would not be "credible".............

Giving evidence to the Commons Public Administration Committee this morning, Sir Jock stressed that it was for politicians to decide whether the UK should have a nuclear deterrent. But assuming the Government's commitment to that principle, the Chief of the Defence Staff said:

"We have to have the minimum credible deterrent. If you are not going to have that, then you are better off having zero. Spending money on a less than minimum credible deterrent makes, to me, no strategic sense at all." He went on: "I would be worried about any proposition that was untenable in the context of maintaining the minimum credible nuclear deterrent, which, to me, is continuous at-sea deterrence by a submarine."

Sir Jock, a former jet pilot who has been Chief of the Defence Staff since 2006, is due to leave his post later this autumn. He had been due to stay on for another six months, but soon after the coalition came to power, it was announced he was leaving early.

He told the MPs the two "critical issues" surrounding a Trident replacement were the ageing submarines and the need to maintain a submarine-building capacity. But asked about a possible delay in the "main gate" decision - when the main spending on the project is triggered - he said: "I'm not aware that any decision has been taken along those lines."

The Prime Minister's spokesman said the decision to renew Trident had "already been taken", but the coalition was "examining the issue of value for money". "The position is that we will maintain the nuclear deterrent," the spokesman said. "Clearly, as part of that value for money review you would expect us to be looking at the profile of spending."

Pressed on what "profile" meant in the context, he added: "It means when you spend money."

Asked whether David Cameron shared Sir Jock's view that the only "credible" form of deterrent would be one that was continuously at sea, the spokesman replied: "The Prime Minister had made his view known on this. We are committed to an effective nuclear deterrent."..........

[Not_a_boffin]

Agree with him for the first time ever.

If you're to have a deterrent, it's against proper states (Achmed the Awful positively relishes martyrdom) and therefore must threaten the survival of that leadership (quick and invulnerable). None of the oft-touted alternatives (TLAM, ASMP) offer these qualities.

Worse, they would require substantially more investment - new UK warhead unless anyone thinks we'd be allowed to buy off the shelf and in any case, the TLAM itself will be pretty tired in the 2020s when the putative ISD is required.

Flexibility of launch platforms is often quoted (eg Astute or Tiffy/GR4/F35), but they would not offer the speed or invulnerability required, plus again, a huge overhead in setting up - particularly for an airlaunched solution (eg PALs, secure / dispersed storage / training etc).

If you're going to have a deterrent CASD bombers are by far the best VFM.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

The daily mail said today it would cost 75 million per aircraft to cancel the air tanker contract. Are they committed given the shelf life of the L1011 and VC10

[Hedgeporker]

The daily mail said today it would cost 75 million per aircraft to cancel the air tanker contract. Are they committed given the shelf life of the L1011 and VC10

As long as the sum of the cancellation cost is less than the sum of through life savings incurred by a new contract, it should be done on principle.

[Squirrel 41]

Which the NAO came within an inch of saying it was, so:

it should be done on principle.

Yep! And if it were done, best that it be done quickly.....

S41

[Royalistflyer]

Surely the easiest, quickest and largest defence cut would be an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. Once withdrawn, the numbers in the army could be reduced, material could be refurbished as an ongoing exercise, and a modest army retained - primarily special forces, artillery, tanks and their necessary back-up units.

[tucumseh]

a modest army retained - primarily special forces, artillery, tanks and their necessary back-up units


I'd say that this sums up the problem. The very capabilities we term "modest" have already been cut and are seen as ripe for more cuts. Although recently reorganised, the "SF" are already too small for what is asked of them. Our back-up, including Reserves, are today routinely committed and often form the vanguard. What price an armed coastal defence unit with a Customs section (RN/RAF), and a brigade level contribution to a Euro Army? Fantasy? There's a lot of our politicians would jump at that one if given the chance.

[Whenurhappy]

Withdrawal from Afghanistan would be at a far greater costs that the fiscal expenditure on kit (not to mention lives). The UK's remaining credibility within NATO - and our 'special' relationship with the US - would be irrevocably damaged. The UK's international standing (which is much higher than many posters here seem to think) would suffer - as we have shown weakness.

[minigundiplomat]

Withdrawal from Afghanistan would be at a far greater costs that the fiscal expenditure on kit (not to mention lives). The UK's remaining credibility within NATO - and our 'special' relationship with the US - would be irrevocably damaged. The UK's international standing (which is much higher than many posters here seem to think) would suffer - as we have shown weakness.


This is the nub of the problem. Credibility, standing and reputation have no easy fiscal value. Troops, tanks and planes do.

Until the beancounters can transpose the equation to make sense, we are going to keep getting shafted.

C'est le Guerre!

[Sunk at Narvik]

"Flexibility of launch platforms is often quoted (eg Astute or Tiffy/GR4/F35)"

I struggle with that argument. Trident is the last defence in a real shooting war when these islands are under direct threat..so the assumption that we'll have any ships or aircraft left to deliver any deterent is questionable. :uhoh:

[mr fish]

a question on my mind since the "crunch" and subsequent realisation of our nations dire fiscal straits,

if (or when) GB plc returns to a state considered "wealthy", can we expect a reasonable INCREASE in defence spending?

or have the days of GB as a "power player" gone for good and "capability holidays" become "capability holes"???




i live in hope!!!

[minigundiplomat]

I suspect that the coming cut in defence spending and associated loss of capability, though understandable, is a false economy.

I see the rationale for cuts, but the world is so uncertain at the moment and I have little doubt we will be paying through the nose 2 years downstream to replace capabilities we didn't think we'd need - probably under UOR's.

I don't see the Coalition as being significantly gung ho, but there is always the chance of NI becoming an issue again, or something unforeseen (a la The Falklands) which we are unable to stay out of or avoid.

[ORAC]

FT: Rifts open up on defence (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/045dc02a-c29c-11df-956e-00144feab49a.html)

Serious rifts have emerged between ministers and service chiefs over Britain’s military priorities as David Cameron’s government enters the final days of intense negotiations over its Strategic Defence and Security Review.

As the prime minister prepares to take the most difficult decisions on military policy since the end of the cold war, Liam Fox, defence secretary, has drawn up a comprehensive blueprint to meet the Treasury’s minimum demand for a 10 per cent cut in his department’s budget over the next four years.Mr Fox is proposing that Britain sticks with its plan to build two new aircraft carriers at a cost of more than £5bn, while buying just 70 Joint Strike Fighters, half the number originally planned. His proposal rules out an extended delay in the replacement of the four submarines that can launch Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent.

But Army chiefs are launching a last-minute assault on Mr Fox’s plans, demanding he goes further in slashing high-tech platforms for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force which they believe the UK does not need. One senior Army figure said: “We’re within two weeks of a decision and we don’t have any vision of how our armed forces should be configured in 2025 unless you think we’re only going to be fighting World War Three. We are in a right bugger’s muddle.”

The Army says Britain should build only one aircraft carrier, using it mainly for training and keeping it on “extended readiness”. In addition, Army chiefs argue the MoD should abandon plans to buy the F-35 jet for the carrier, restricting itself to purchasing the land version after 2020 while investing in unmanned combat air vehicles.

However, senior defence figures told the FT that the Navy and RAF will fiercely resist any change to Mr Fox’s plan, which was finalised at a meeting of the defence board at the MoD last Tuesday. It will be presented to the prime minister’s National Security Council in 10 days’ time. Senior defence officials fear fierce inter-service rivalry is standing in the way of a sound strategic outcome. “The Army is putting forward a vision that is uncompromisingly army-centric,” said one. “What is the point of going through a joint process if they break ranks to propose something unbalanced and incoherent?”

Navy and RAF chiefs said Britain needed the carriers and jet fighters to maintain a major military presence around the world. They also fear that demands of fighting in Afghanistan will excuse the Army from the need to make budget cuts.

But Army figures are incensed at the way Mr Fox has backed the other two services. “The idea that we should purchase two carriers is strategically illiterate,” said one planner. “Fox has based his strategy on giving Britain lots of big guns without knowing what to do with them.”

Asked whether Mr Cameron would defy Mr Fox and opt for just one carrier, this figure said: “I believe the prime minister may well do that. It makes military sense, it makes economic sense, it fits with current thinking on the nature of warfare and it fits with what the US military would want.”

[AutoBit]

I am always surprised at the Army's claim that carriers are a "WW3 platform". Would anyone like to remind them where that majority of CAS in Afghanistan comes from....US Carriers in the Indian Ocean.

If we can afford them or not is a different argument.

[rich2010]

Since when were the army the soothsayers of national defence. '...the army says no carriers, the army says no Typhoon/ F-35...'

Do the government chaps really listen to army generals regarding floaty/ flying things? Surely they'd listen to the respective heads about their respective bits and bobs, rather than they don't need/ they'd be better off with... How about they stick to their own business.

[Diablo Rouge]

Logic & reason is not the Army way.

It is their way; else they shout louder until such time as those with logic & reason get tired of rants and opt for the quiet life instead.

Whilst tempted to engage in divisive conversation, the bottom line is that as an island nation with the leg iron of the Commonwealth and therefore a need to deploy globally, we need an Army and a Navy and an Air Force. The only option is to leave global commitments high and dry and implode into a Defence Force that would confirm the Cardinals opinion of the UK being a third world country.

We are not as professional as we like to think; and much of that is down to contempory leadership. A trait that has followed economic support into a flat spin. Furthermore, there clearly is no money for recovery and regarding leadership, the potential solution in tomorrows leaders continue to leave early.

[minigundiplomat]

"Fox has based his strategy on giving Britain lots of big guns without knowing what to do with them.”

As opposed to giving Britain lots of little guns without knowing what to do with them.

[Army Mover]

Since when were the army the soothsayers of national defence. '...the army says no carriers, the army says no Typhoon/ F-35...'

Do the government chaps really listen to army generals regarding floaty/ flying things? Surely they'd listen to the respective heads about their respective bits and bobs, rather than they don't need/ they'd be better off with... How about they stick to their own business.

They listen no more to the Army than they do the RAF or the Navy; they DO listen to the person who is saying the things they want to hear.

[Exnomad]

The thing that upsets me about the defence review is the thought that an allegedly competent government cannot find 2.7% of GDP for defence of the realm. Speaking as a younger sibling who had to older siblings serve in WW2

[Occasional Aviator]

I am always surprised at the Army's claim that carriers are a "WW3 platform". Would anyone like to remind them where that majority of CAS in Afghanistan comes from....US Carriers in the Indian Ocean.

Errr... no.

A small amount of the CAS in Afghanstan comes from the carriers. Most comes from land-based air inside the country. In fact, even during the initial op in 2002, more than 80% of the ordnance dropped was from aircraft that took off from US airbases [Mainly CONUS, but counting Diego Garcia].

Carriers are a vital element of power projection and a great influnce tool, but I wouldn't want to tie up too muchof the country's air power on them...

[colonel cluster]

Occ Aviator, whilst in terms of tonnage, I agree about those US assets based in CONUS or DG, in terms of CAS sorties on a daily basis, whether they drop ordnance or not, I would warrant that the stats show a singificant contribution from embarked assets. Note i do not say all, but they are more than just there to justify Carrier aviation!

[AutoBit]

Occasional Aviator,

Err no.....

I don't want to get into an argument about exact %'s but the simple fact is that the Carrier contributes a significent proportion of the CAS in theater. Talk to any BALO about the issues they have when the Carrier has a RAS day.

[johnnypaveway]

As an aforementioned BASO (apparently we don't have BALOs anymore - although every conversation would go along the lines of 'hi I am Sqn Ldr JPW, I'm the Bde Air Staff Officer...... - Whats that? Is it like the BALO?.......alright I'm the BALO[In a Jeff Vader voice])

The contribution of the carrier group is significant, that said the majority of assets alocated to the org formerly known as TFH was invariably GR-4, A-10 heavy.

Bottom line - It is a team game:=

Kindest Regards
JPW

[Finningley Boy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich2010
Since when were the army the soothsayers of national defence. '...the army says no carriers, the army says no Typhoon/ F-35...'

Do the government chaps really listen to army generals regarding floaty/ flying things? Surely they'd listen to the respective heads about their respective bits and bobs, rather than they don't need/ they'd be better off with... How about they stick to their own business.

They listen no more to the Army than they do the RAF or the Navy; they DO listen to the person who is saying the things they want to hear.


I have read in the FT Weekend today that the Army people are hopping mad that Dr B Brush isn't giving the Navy and the R.A.F. the asset stripping style good hiding which they fell is richly deserved.:ok:

FB

[Compressorstall]

According to the Sunday Times today, the Army will have hardly any cutbacks whilst the RN and the RAF bear the majority. The story claims the RAF is to lose half the FJ, scrap the Puma upgrade, close RAF Benson, reduce the new Chinook buy to 12 whilst the RN keep the carriers, but they will have a much smaller air group. The RAF and the RN are to lose 10000 personnel each, Allegedly it has all been argued by the incoming CDS that the Army is fighting the current war in Afghanistan and things like the Chinooks won't be in service before our committment ends. Whilst Afghanistan is massively important, only the naive must imagine that we won't be involved in something else afterwards as war often comes as something as a surprise.

However, the speculation and leaks is wearing to organisations who already have quite a lot to deal with. The in-fighting between services is also tiring.

[Melchett01]

Allegedly it has all been argued by the incoming CDS that the Army is fighting the current war in Afghanistan

And when we pull out of Afghanistan, then what? The Army can't keep beating the RAF and RN with that stick indefinitely.

Once our Afghan adventure is over, with limited capability left, no money and even less political and public will for further fighting, the Army will be left to train for the next conflict, which given those issues, we may not have a part to play in. However, the RAF and the RN will still be carrying out their primary functions defending the UK's airspace and sea lines of communications.

CDS can stamp his feet all he likes - the more he does, the more he makes it seem that the Army's glass house is built on very thin ice. All we can hope is that the other Service chiefs articulate that in a cogent and coherent manner that is impossible to ignore and that the SoS Defence actually does what is right and not what is easy.

[Finningley Boy]

In the Daily Mail today the story is that the R.A.F. and R.N. will bear the brunt of the cuts. Evidently, Sir David Richards has managed to convince David Cameron that the Army and Afghanistan are the future!:*

This is in order to spare 20'000 troops needed in Afghanistan?

However, the good Doctor is still insistant on the Carriers and Trident.:confused:

Then again the Liberal Democrats are still trying to seek a cheaper alternative to Trident?!?!?!?!?:}

FB

[Gnd]

If the conversation has gone to American Air Power and American Aircraft doing CAS, does that mean the Typhoon is dead and the Russians aren’t knocking at our back door or was that just a non-argument that was being spouted in the spirit of ‘defensism’ against logic!!!
It would seem the Army case is correct or the RAF have just given up (as quoted above)?????

[LFFC]

Telegraph - 27 Sep 10 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8026132/Armed-Forces-chiefs-to-lose-manor-houses-and-servants-in-defence-cuts.html)

As part of the New Employment Model to be introduced in the defence review both officers and other ranks will find it increasingly hard to claim boarding school allowance that can account for 90 per cent of fees but costs £140 million a year.

I guess this was always going to be a target, but at least it sounds like it won't stop immediately.

I wonder what else is included in the New Employment Model?

[Whenurhappy]

We claimed CEA as it was the only way to get a reasonable standard of education for our son given our frequent moves. However, there were/are quite a large number of Naval Service personnel who claimed CEA on the basis of being 'mobile', yet the kids went to school within spitting distance of home. There was also the scam of some Army personnel submitting the 'extras' bill to the Regtl Accounting Officer, who 'would sort it out'.

The 90% myth of CEA annoys me. With exception of Duke of York's and Queen Victoria's school, CEA might pay half of the fees, something that the Telegraph article failed to mention.

Certainly of CEA was restricted any further, I suspect that there would be a fair few middle/senior ranked personnel who would head for the door - I know I would...

[Aeronut]

Just think of all those poor kids that will end up leaving private schools for comprehensives - like Will from the Inbetweeners! :\

[Whenurhappy]

You are right - it would be the kids who would be the victims if CEA is withdrawn.


If we could have guaranteed access to decent state-funded schools on each posting without having to jump through pointless local-authority hoops we would have taken it.

Anyway I don't want my son to be a Chav...

[500days2do]

Trident...why bother, not going to deter a terrorist attack...not independant....not legal....massive cost for no bang...never understood the military need for it....But if we are talking politics and a seat at the big boys table...well, if they want it, make them pay for it...let the politicians stand up and tell the country that we have spent the nations wealth on an invite to the party and that we would like to close/cancel and cut enough to do so for the next 20+ years...

5d2d

[Wrathmonk]

The whole issue of CEA has been looked at as a 'savings measure' in the same way as the Red Arrows has over the years.

I think it will be a tightening of the 'rules' rather than a complete removal. With the reduction in bases (and this includes the Army returning from Germany as much as the RAF and RN) there may be less in the way of 'postings' and therefore less requirement for CEA (after all, CEA is there to stop multiple school moves as parents 'follow the flag' rather than to give a so-called 'better' education:E).

Unfortunately it is the small minority who have been located at the same unit for 10+ years, perhaps live in their own house and send the kids to boarding school who have attracted the unwanted attention of the 'bean counters' (and before I get flamed I agree that most people would, quite rightly, buy their own house rather than live in MQs - has any attempt to stop Home To Duty from private reidences or remove disturbance/moving allowance been raised yet - probably need to wait till the Army move back from Germany before that one gets 'leaked' from Army RP....:E). Granted, you may be 'available' to be posted elsewhere but there are many, many people who have stayed in one place for a long, long time. We may find Manning being forced to 'press to test' a few of these such "availability to move declerations" - decline to move and lose your CEA perhaps?

And there are schools aside from DofY and QV (i.e non 'military' schools) where CEA covered 90% of the fees (and the claim to start with was less than 50% of the entitlement!):)

[Aeronut]

I take it that you have been stationed somewhere for a long time and have not had to make use of CEA?



Au contraire!

Is his Dad in the forces?


Will is known as "briefcase w@nker"! He had to leave a posh private school for a comprehensive school because of his parent's money problems.

This is my fear for some if CEA were to be cut.

It should remain at least until the current children are 18 for existing claimants.

[minigundiplomat]

Really Annoyed possibly doesn't understand Will's predicament fully, as he has no briefcase.

[Wrathmonk]

It should remain at least until the current children are 18 for existing claimants

I suspect that will be the case provided you continue to meet the 'requirements', which will get 'tighter', more controlled and more 'tested'.

However, on a tangent, what about continued payments for those children of servicemen/women made compulsory redundant....? No more different than removing CEA from someone still serving who doesn't actually need it because they never move units but still claim the allowance ....:suspect:

[eard]

Point 1 - Be objective.

Point 2 - Ask whether CEA contributes and enables a better force. For example, there are many personnel from all services who will and have departed to interesting areas at a moments notice in support of HMG, safe in the knowledge that when, and if, they return, there is some small chance that their children are able to have a stable education despite numerous postings and ops. If the military employment routine is to change to fewer postings and or disruption then re-examine. Furthermore, spare a thought for those serving couples and single parents who are able to deploy on active service and be moved around with little fuss because of this system - is that value for money?

Point 3 - Make sure that if you change the process you do not alienate and drive out those loyal and hard working people who help to make military delivery work. Furthermore, make sure the rules cater for those who abuse the system.

Discuss

[Aeronut]

what about continued payments for those children of servicemen/women made compulsory redundant....?


Once redundant there is no need to move around so schooling can be stable......therefore no need for a boarding school.

Its not necessarily there to gain a better level of schooling, merely to deal with the mobile aspect. The fact that comps are generally $hite ( I should know) in comaprison won't matter.

[LFFC]

In the overall scheme of things to come, I suspect that a tightening of CEA rules will be lost in the noise.

Trident Replacement Delay Expected - Monday, September 27, 2010 (http://www.modoracle.com/news/Trident-Replacement-Delay-Expected_21466.html)

Putting off plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system until after the next general election, and drastically scaling down plans to build two new aircraft carriers, are expected to be among key decisions agreed at a meeting of the government's national security council next week, well-placed sources have told the Guardian newspaper.

The Navy will pay for the limited carrier project by agreeing to severe cuts in the number of its surface ships, defence officials say. The RAF will lose many of its fast jets, mainly Tornado and Harriers, and tens of thousands of Ministry of Defence posts, civilian and military, will be axed. A proposed 20% cut in the size of the army - a loss of some 20,000 soldiers - will be put off because of political sensitivity at a time British troops are fighting and getting killed in Afghanistan, according to sources familiar with the negotiations.

[minigundiplomat]

For once I agree with Mr Annoyed re the hot potato thing.

There will be cuts, I think everybody has absorbed that, but they need to be able to sell the cuts to the electorate.

It depends on whether they can spin this or not. My guess is they probably could, but it has quite a high chance of backfiring in a big way.

It is easy to sell it as an expensive perk to which many of our colleagues in the private sector are excluded - right up to the point were some Cpl from the Parachute Regt* with an MC is in the Daily Mail with his kids having been removed from private school and getting bullied in a state school. Throw in a couple of pictures of him carrying an afghan kid to safety and hey presto, the electorate are 'off message'.

* insert favourite unit of the month.

[Wrathmonk]

there is no need to move around so schooling can be stable......therefore no need for a boarding school

And that is precisely the line being peddled by the Bean Counters - fewer bases, less need (or options) to move, no need for CEA. Not saying this is going to affect only the RAF - I would suggest the Army (with their Garrisons) and the Navy (with not many Dockyards left) will feel the pinch harder. Expect pressure to be put on whether an individual is mobile (in the permanent move sense rather than the deployable sense) or not. That's when the tears will come. Of course if you made those in receipt of CEA compulsory redundant you've made a double savings.:E

And to counter the Daily Mail line you can expect the Mirror to come up with "if CEA is good enough for Servicemen who are not mobile then why aren't the Nurses / Firemen (insert any public servant) getting CEA as well" or worse "ConDem Education system not good enough for our brave lads and lasses" thus accelerating the removal of CEA to prove the state system is good enough, despite (as RA puts it) there not being enough money for :

new schools in a number of locations

and
attendant 'all up' costs of teachers

Does anybody know how much the removal of CEA would save? How many would actually leave the Service if it was removed? And those that would leave are they the ones who the Services would love to get rid of (i.e. the non-deployables/O2 thieves who only remain in the Services because of the CEA package). Any changes, which again I firmly believe are only going to be to the regulations rather than the total removal, will be lost in the noise of the big ticket item cuts (along with other changes to allowances, quartering charges etc etc).

There are far worse things to worry about than the future of CEA I would suggest!

[Neil Porter]

I think its awful to keep cutting our armed forces in general, and i think Cameron and his brigade should look into the future and realise we need a decent level of services support - not to reduce it. If its going to be bad as people fear it could be, then why not all 3 services just 'down tools' and strike :) then he'll have a problem.
Seriously i hope we don't end up with a force thats less than capable of holding its own (which i guess it won't come to that), its such a shame to see continual closures and disbandments.

As regards the Puma non upgrade & scrapping as well halving the new Chinook order as was reported in one of the papers, i thought the idea for SHF was to increase the levels of helo support as that is why we took on additional Merlins from the Danes? (that is right isn't it??).. sorry just my pennys worth - just feel sorry for you all!

[Aeronut]

There are far worse things to worry about than the future of CEA I would suggest!

But not many!.............than say 3 children @ £5,833 per term = £52,497 per year that face the fate of Inbetweener Will!

[Squirrel 41]

Blimey aeronut-grab it while you can! that's almost 100k gross just to send the children to school!

Indeed, which is what a lot of people have done, and it's removal would actually free a lot of mid-career people to look again at staying in - which given the cuts in numbers coming could be advantageous.

I suspect that it will go, and if they're sensible (a big if, given £140m p.a. cost), those in school should be allowed to finish their current set of exams (ie GCSEs or A Levels) or the end of this year. It would also be interesting to see how many of the smaller private schools go to the wall over this - to be taken over by the free state system, possibly.

S41

[Widger]

Far far cheaper is the RN method of "base porting", where a sailor can stay in a married quarter in a particular area, even though he may be posted elsewhere. e.g. Plymouth house posted to a Portsmouth based ship or you could haver RAF Airman allowed to keep his family in Cott/Witt area even though he has a 2 year posting to Lossiemouth. This gives the family stability, allows the wifey to work and build a career, allows the child continuity of education in the local area and incidently, improves the demographic in said local comprehensive. (my local comp is in the top 5% of state schools in the country) Saves a whack on CEA and also on Disturbance and removal expenses, improves retention. NO BRAINER!!! Unfortunately, in all the noise, this innovative system that has been in existence for many years will probably get trashed as well. So that those that have taken the P*** ruin it for everyone.