SDSR Revisited ?

[Bannock]

Todays Financial Time reporting that SDSR may be revisited. Apparently mistakes have been made. No **** sherlock!

Defence review may be reopened in funding crisis - report | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE70J16120110120)

[Jumping_Jack]

This has already started, I think they're looking for another £1bn due to an 'error' in the initial calculations. Looking to lop another 10,000 off the Army as a starter. :ugh:

[StopStart]

But not in a good way. More like "now you've got used to the planned cuts, we can squeeze in a few more".

Bets on what extra is going to go please!

Sqn of GRs?
The C130K?
Puma upgrade?
A400M?

Fun fun fun......

[Jabba_TG12]

Doesnt reflect well on the lords and masters both in and out of uniform, does it? :sad:

I think the phrase used by one of the senior CS's went along the lines of "its going to make them look like complete idiots"...

There will be at least one positive coming out of it though... the chances of us getting involved in any meaningful way in any Blair style intervention in the immediate future are going to be very severely diminished.

Kind of goes some way towards tempering the biggest negative of barely having enough resource to properly look after your own back yard before you get forced to press the Trident button, but still... every cloud and all that. :E

[bluetail]

It will only be bad news I,m afraid, I see in todays press that LOA and "other" expenses have now been hammered for the troops, bet the civvies dont get touched though

[Jimlad1]

"
It will only be bad news I,m afraid, I see in todays press that LOA and "other" expenses have now been hammered for the troops, bet the civvies dont get touched though"

Going to bite here - CS allowances are being reviewed, and will be cut in time. They are totally different to forces allowances though so I'd expect to see changes made in line with the rest of the wider civil service and not the forces.
EDIT - release is now out of AFF website.

http://www.aff.org.uk/linkedfiles/aff/20110120dib201104sdsrimplementation-changestoservicepersonnelallowances.pdf

[Squirrel 41]

The FT article:

FT.com / UK / Politics & policy - UK military faces further £1bn in cuts (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52678fb4-241a-11e0-a89a-00144feab49a.html#axzz1BUrbbu6Y)

The final paragraph says this:

There is also deep dismay at the MoD that David Cameron’s government has allowed this situation to arise. As one senior figure put it on Wednesday: “We’re looking at holding a second SDSR just six months after we held the last one. It makes us look like complete idiots.”

Umm.... Yes! :hmm:

S41

[bluetail]

JIMLad

My point is that the Troops will be affected and be impacted almost immediately because they have very limited protection from these sort of events, the CS on the other hand will only eventually be impacted after no doubt several rounds of "consultations" with their Union.

Its the fairness of it all that stinks to me, every Government in history (well as long as I can remember) have said they will sort out the Civil service, and never have, in the end they pick on the easy targets, in this case the Lads, its just another kick in b&ll$cks for the military and it will be the Privates, Seamen and Airmen who get the worst of it , not those sitting in RAF Buckinghamshire

[Pontius Navigator]

BT, it is a case of poacher/game keeper and the birds.

[Pheasant]

Wasn't the problem due to the new CDS getting the PM to agree to an Army of 95000 without checking whether there was money for this strength - guess what, there isn't!!!

[Two's in]

I think the phrase used by one of the senior CS's went along the lines of "its going to make them look like complete idiots"...

Not even close. As StopStart alludes to below, having got away with the premise of major cuts without sparking armed insurrection or an overthrow of the elected Government, they now are simply moving in to fine tune those areas where they think they will get away with it again - and they will.

But not in a good way. More like "now you've got used to the planned cuts, we can squeeze in a few more".

[vulcanxl426]

I hate to say it but i think its bye bye reds. :sad::sad:

[draken55]

And bye to Leuchars, the Puma update, the refit for HMS Ocean and then to Devonport:hmm:

[Lyneham Lad]

Hmmm, another £1billion in cuts eh?! Well, if this pathetic excuse for a Government told Brussels to go whistle for the £1billion 'fine' levied on the UK due to the Labour/DEFRA monumental c*ck-up with the Single Payment Scheme, no SDSR revisit would be needed. Simples! :{

PS a certain newspaper website is reporting:-
The SAS and other elite personnel are to see their specialist pay cut as part of a 30 per cent reduction in allowances for the Armed Forces to be announced today. Under existing rules, Special Forces officers and men receive about 20 per cent more than their regular forces comrades.

[Finningley Boy]

I've got the answer, seeing as the overseas aid bill got a boost of £4,000,000,000 they could take the £1,000,000,000 out of that. Any further cuts to the defence budget would be utterly indifferent, reckless and Treasonous!:mad:

FB:)

[EGGP]

It will only be bad news I,m afraid, I see in todays press that LOA and "other" expenses have now been hammered for the troops, bet the civvies dont get touched though"


I'll bite as well, civil servants have already lost Incidental expenses allowance as well as the same reduction in motor mileage allowance as service personnel. They have also slashed the terms for voluntary and compulsory redundancy.

Management are also removing the move on PPI terms if you change jobs and the new job is further than daily travelling distance, unless the business are are willing to fund this. Guess how many will actually do this in future?. That will mean civil servants will have to move home entirely at their own expense.

When all the jobs go to Abbeyood which is fast becoming the centre of the universe most people won't be able to afford to move even if they wanted to. So when your job is cut and they tell you to go to the other end of the country you have to bear the cost or leave.

Thats before they get round to reducing the terms of such expenses.

I was talking to someone from private industry who has just got a temporary census job for the Dept for National Statistics. they were horrified to find that the CS only pays 25p per mile. So much for civil servant fatcats.

We are all going to be shafted so why knock the CS?

EGGP

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

bye bye reds


Although the Reds total cost to the MOD balance sheet is very small indeed - they may be disbanded, but an awful lot else will have to go as well to achieve the new saving target.

To my mind, the main problem caused by the Reds continuing to exist is not that they cost a lot of money which could be put to better use elsewhere, but that the existence of a full-time display team who put up a large formation of brightly-painted jets suggests to the public that the RAF/MOD can't really be that short of money or else we wouldn't have this 'extravagance'. The revenue which the Reds bring in, directly and indirectly, is largely overlooked.

[Double Zero]

It's small beer in military terms I know having been involved, but how many people know about this, and what do people think the reaction to this generally may be;

There is a EU Directive that UK must have conservation measures in place, with categorisation of areas concerned, and what 'appriate steps' are taken to protect these areas, all around the UK coast...

When faced with this, it seems the civil service thought to themselves - "conservation, who deals with that ? I know, get the conservation lobby to sort it, they're always moaning, they can make the recommendations"...

So 4 groups were set up to divide up the coast, and a multitude of steering committees and conservation charites involved who think it's all their Christmases come at once - end result, they are trying to virtually ban anchoring by small craft at the majority of anchorages which have been in use for centuries.

What will be of interest here, apart from any boat owners reading, is that these areas designated 'no anchoring' or even 'no go at all ' are to be strictly policed with both ( presumably RIB ) patrol craft and on shore !

I happen to be one of a small group of yachties who have ganged together to fight this, and there is hope we may influence the dafter decisions and deflect - but no way stop - this all happening; whole new rows of shiny seats for conservation servants, and some whole new force presumably to police / patrol by land and sea.

The first question we are asked every time is " How is this possible at a time when we're crucifying schools, NHS, Care Homes, Defence, everything ? "

( apologies but perhaps understandably that's Joe Public's thoughts of cuts )

As I say the process is unstoppable, the theory is that it's cheaper for the 'Government' ( any flavour ) to set up this nonsense than the humungous fines from Brussels if they don't.

Personally I'd like to see some figures on that, but in the meantime we're extremely busy fighting our cause - if 'they' - the conservationists seeking to influnce the decisions - get their way, there will be no safe anchorage from the Solent to Portland, which is pretty important in a small boat with a family aboard in a gale...
And that's just the test case at Studland, the same is due around all our coast.

I've brought this up as my blood began to boil - again- reading this thread; you may be heartened to hear the sailing magazine where all this came to light, and our organisation to deflect it was formed, was white-hot after the last cuts a few months ago - and I, my father and two uncles had a total of 139 years working at Hawkers / BAe Dunsfold...

In case anyone is interested in our little war - any boat users who haven't heard about this won't believe it but sadly it's true -

Boat Owners Response Group (http://www.boatownersresponsegroup.com)

Yes, the BORG ! - actually suggested by our retired co-founder, stays in the mind...

Good luck to all of you, maybe there will be transfers to this new force ?!

[Pontius Navigator]

The Red's problem is the aircraft. I believe they have sufficient airframes at the moment but probably no money for 128s.

[Double Zero]

Presumably it's thought the export prospects for more 100-series ( or any other ) Hawks is already fully explored, so no point equipping our 'best salesmen' with current / slightly future standard kit ?

[Topsy Turvey]

"My point is that the Troops will be affected and be impacted almost immediately because they have very limited protection from these sort of events, the CS on the other hand will only eventually be impacted after no doubt several rounds of "consultations" with their Union."

Would you like to repeat that claim in front of the part of the MoD where I work! 250+ civilian posts to be cut in the next two years, 25,000 in the MoD as a whole, civilian pay frozen for at least two years, Pension & redundancy benefits (negotiatedt by Mrs Thatchers Govt not Labour) slashed , T&S restricted

I have a mixed civilian and military staff and both are being adveresly affected. As the man said: "We are all in this together" (except the bankers!)

[bluetail]

Just 250 which a mere fraction/percentage of the military that are being made redundant, come and spend a few days at ISK where a whole RAF skill set is to be removed.

It just proves one thing to me, like everyone with an ounce of common sense said at the time the SDSR was done far to hastily, and now its come home to bite because it wasnt done properly, and they (ConDems) have got away with it, their new logic will be that we can get away with some more using the same arguament. The ConDem legacy will be to leave a proud nation defenceless through ineptitude and lack of experience and military leaders who came across as gutless.

But anyone who seriously thinks that once the economy perks up a bit that cancelled military contracts will be reinstated are living in a dream world. Even if the politicians admit they made a mistake (which they wont of course) they will not be prepared to spend any money unless its for one of the following:-

That bottomless pit called the NHS
Out of control Immigration
Out of control Assylum seekers
Foreign Aid to countries who are better off than us (eg India)
Continually bailing out the Eurozone

I,ll save you a Billion..dont shut Kinloss saving 500million or so, dont shut Lossie or Leuchars..another 500million, because thats aproximately what it will cost per base to shut them

Cancel the stupid Puma upgrade, an aircraft well past its sell by date and that will only last another 4 or 5 years after upgrade.
Reduce the number of senior officers, goodness knows how much that would save, because none of them had the decency to resign over the cuts.

[Finningley Boy]

I,ll save you a Billion..dont shut Kinloss saving 500million or so, dont shut Lossie or Leuchars..another 500million, because thats aproximately what it will cost per base to shut them



Hear Hear. But what kind of hearing will this degree of sound common sense be granted by the government. My fear is the "lets cut a leg off in order to save weight" mentality could prevail, because only being seen to close things down can the otherwise erudite bean counter be convinced that money is being saved.:}

FB:)

[Talk Reaction]

Thanks for finding that Jim

I know allowances has raised it's head in other threads but to actually see it in black and white rasies some ugly questions. Does anyone know if RB of fg pay is actioned as soon as you hit a gnd tour or if you volunteer to stay away from flying?
Strikes me that given the vast reduction in cockpits it's going to be difficult for people to manage only 2 years or less away from fg. Or is fg pay going to feature in this reveiw of specialist pay this year? They can't affors what should have happened ages ago which is a different pay stream ala JRs tech trades versus others because it would lead to a big pension hit, can they??
I hope they realise that I don't have to earn much on top of my pension to hit my salary less fg pay and therefore there are going to be no benefits to staying in soon - there will be an exodus, then an FRI :rolleyes:

[heights good]

"Cancel the stupid Puma upgrade, an aircraft well past its sell by date and that will only last another 4 or 5 years after upgrade."

Bluetail - Without going into things in depth in an open forum, the Puma upgrade will provide a huge leap in capability and until 2025 for the paltry sum of £400m. To re-engine 30 Merlins is costing over twice that amount, JUST for engines!

If you have access to anybody in the know that can give you the details it may be an idea to ask them. It might just save you making random and slightly uninformed statements.

HG

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

the paltry sum of £400m. To re-engine 30 Merlins is costing over twice that amount, JUST for engines!


Well 30 Merlins have twice as many engines as 24 Pumas (nearly)!

But I don't like the way the cost of the Puma upgrade has apparently increased by 33% in barely a year...not surprised, just not happy...

[vulcanxl426]

Well i got told a story today from someone who is in the know.

When the RAF retired the jag fleet they sold the majority of the fleet for
total £17.000 i was told 15 airframes to a company in suffolk ( i think you know who ) then when the RAF need more airframes for cosford the RAF bought 2 jags for £17.000 each so yet again the RAF wasting money.

Then another story same company bought a load of brand new shar canopys still in there transit boxes. Then the indian airforce enquired to the RAF to see if they had any they wanted to sell so the RAF put them onto this company, Well it turns out this company sold them to the IAF for £100.000 each .

This is what i dont understand why dont the RAF ask other nations if they need or want any airframes or spares instead of scrapping them or selling them for next to nothing as companys like the one in suffolk are rubbing there hands together thinking thank you RAF anything else you wanna sell .

To sum up my uncle had the right idea come back maggie thatcher all is forgiven ok she mucked up abit but she would never let the armed forces get in state it is in today.

Right il get off my soap box now .

[rockape2k7]

Although the Reds total cost to the MOD balance sheet is very small indeed - they may be disbanded, but an awful lot else will have to go as well to achieve the new saving target.

To my mind, the main problem caused by the Reds continuing to exist is not that they cost a lot of money which could be put to better use elsewhere

Oppurtunity cost is the flavour of the day... go back a while we withdrew from the Royal Tattoo... if we are completely reaslistic, they stand no chance without sponsorship from outside; fortunately, I think they will attract it.

What a bloody sorry state of affairs Blabour drove us to. :mad:

[Vox Populi]

There is also deep dismay at the MoD that David Cameron’s government has allowed this situation to arise.

Doesn't the MOD realise it IS part of David Cameron's Government.

[Postman Plod]

Whilst they may serve the elected government of the day, you do understand that MoD, other departments, the civil service and military personnel are non-political, and not part of ANY government, don't you?

[Uncle Ginsters]

Whilst there was much debate over whether SDSR was a true strategic review or just cuts, there can now be no doubt that SDSR MkII is simply a Defence cut. Just call it DC MkI (with all sorts of connotations) and the collective faces of MoD are saved, right?:}

[Finningley Boy]

I sure as income tax hope that Blair gets his comeuppance at the Chilcot Inquiry later today!:mad:

FB:)

[glad rag]

are non-political,

I take it you are being sarcastic?

[tucumseh]

As stated by other posters, yet again MoD is being stiffed by the BCs as a result of their "can do" attitude.

Nary a whisper of complaint when whole fleets and capabilities were chopped. e.g. MPA. Just an unseemly rush toward gongdom.

Other Departments are fighting their corner to the last, so the BCs turn again toward the supine MoD Stars, approaching from the side the goings tilt them toward. "Cheques" and balance takes on a whole new meaning.



On the other hand, it won't have escaped the BCs that it remains MoD policy and practice that knowingly wasting money is highly rewarded, while those who refuse can wave good bye. Until MoD are seen to rescind that particularly fraudulent rule, they will be a prime target.


As for politics & MoD, I'd say Bernard Gray is definitely a political appointment as CDM (?). His brief will be to implement his 2009 report. Or at least those parts that don't upset the BCs. He'll find resistance from within to the remainder. For example, he suggested it would be a good idea to both quantify and cost requirements before letting contracts. (On the basis that one must quantify before one can cost and if you don't, how does anyone know what the equipment budget should be?). MoD ditched that notion in 1987. How many are left who can produce the regs of the day and effect seamless regression? (I've still got mine - they are the bible for time, cost and performance). And he'll probably discover the SDSR cuts mean he has to write another report against an ever-shifting baseline.

What a bloody mess.

[EGGP]

"Just 250 which a mere fraction/percentage of the military that are being made redundant, come and spend a few days at ISK where a whole RAF skill set is to be removed."

You forgot to mention that the civil servants at ISK and elsewhere where there is a base closure will also lose their jobs as well. The 25,000 civil servants to go is a larger percentage than the service staff who are being made redundant.

As I said in my last post we are all being shafted.

[engineer(retard)]

TOTD

You need to take Heights Goods advice as well, talk to somene in the know.

regards

retard

[Pontius Navigator]

This is what i dont understand why dont the RAF ask other nations if they need or want any airframes or spares instead of scrapping them or selling them for next to nothing as companys like the one in suffolk are rubbing there hands together thinking thank you RAF anything else you wanna sell .

You can blame the Braun one again. RAC or resource accounting requires the owner to acknowledge cost of ownership. In, say, your Harrier canopy cost £100k then the MOD has to pay the Treasury £6k pa (assuming 6% which was a figure I saw quoted).

Also in never-never-land, a stores building whose racking is 6 feet and whose ceiling is 12 feet in, by definition, 50% empty. That extra space has to be paid for ..............

[andrewn]

Quote:
The Red's problem is the aircraft. I believe they have sufficient airframes at the moment but probably no money for 128s.
Won't you ever tune in PN ? The thread is not about keeping the Red's going, it's about SDSR II.

FFS


PN's right - disbanding the RED's is the answer to all the services problems, not sure why it's never been mentioned before?:ugh:

[ShortFatOne]

Word on the street is that there is still a £17Bn 'hole' in the equipment program over the next 4 years.:eek:

[GreenKnight121]

Not to step on anyone's fear-filled rantings, but there is this...

MoD denies plans to reopen SDSR - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=15244)

MoD denies plans to reopen SDSR
Thursday, January 20, 2011

The Ministry of Defence has denied that it is considering reopening the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) in order to help counter an estimated £1bn shortfall in its annual budget.


Of course, this could be the standard "denial before confirmation" that officials like to give.

[Biggus]

"....we did not eat the pigeon..."

[Mad_Mark]

They don't need to reopen SDSR, they'll just hide the additional cuts in PR11 :hmm:

[Sand4Gold]

They don't need to reopen SDSR, they'll just hide the additional cuts in PR11 http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

You Sir, have got it in one - it's going to hurt (again!).

S4G

[Squirrel 41]

They don't need to reopen SDSR, they'll just hide the additional cuts in PR11 :hmm:

Which is precisely the problem - this is exactly what happened last time, and it saw programmes being pushed right to the next PR on financial, rather than strategic grounds. It doesn't take the brains of a rocket scientist to work out that there are always going to be additional costs imposed by delays; it also rewards "entryism" of deliberately underestimating costs to get something into the programme, knowing that virtually nothing is ever actually cancelled - MRA4 being the obvious exception.

Heroic assumptions aren't.

S41

[Guzlin Adnams]

My daughter's in an ATC Sq and their flying time has been cut by 75%. She's only 16 and upset as she doesn't think that she'll get her chance to experience flight with the RAF now. Moral is very low generally on the Sq.
Only a small unit as things go but to hear what some of the guys and girls are saying about what's happening and their opinions about today's politicians, whatever the colour is very eye-opening.
Only a very small story but there's an underlying feeling that I'm picking up. Politicians need to be very careful from now on. There's no trust.
The thing is, is this country actually worth fighting for as things are? I've heard so many people asking this question in my travels. Does the population care if we don't have any armed forces? I take my hat to the RAF, indeed to all armed forces personel for somehow not telling our leaders to f--k off (please excuse) when they want blood to be spilled or to a lesser extent snow cleared, civil emergency work carried out etc. You're being abused. I'm now starting a second bottle. Good luck...:mad:

[Melchett01]

It does strike me that a feeling of anger and resentment is growing across all sectors of society, and I really wouldn't be surprised to see more and more unrest spilling on to the streets.

And whilst the anarchists and their like will no doubt tag on, at the heart of this will be the average man in the street who is being slowly and mercilessly strangled by rapidly increasing taxation, rapidly decreasing value for money in terms of the returns we get from government, commerce and industry from our increasing 'investment', red tape and political correctness. And frankly, the claims of Cameron et al that they are just sorting out the mess they inherited is growing rather tiring and is simply a way to tighten the screw on middle England ever tighter.

And when the police can't cope, the fire brigades, prison services and chunks of the transport infrastructure have all gone on strike, it will be us, the military, that is called in to plug the gap. You don't need heavy armour, aircraft carriers or fast jets when all you are is a paramilitary organisation - and that is the what we are rapidly becoming. Soon we won't be doing exchange tours with US forces, we'll be off to Italy for a tour with the Carabinieri or to some other such gendarmerie. Combat tours will be a thing of the past, as we will be off to some sleepy hollow in theatre to train up a local police outpost.

Frankly, the writing is well and truly on the wall - we are rapidly heading towards an irreducible minimum.

[Diablo Rouge]

I wish I had a counter argument to the last two posters:

But I dont........

The minority sectors of UK society must tread very carefully, for there will be many in poverty that will take any opportunity to make a student protest in London look like a walk in the park. At the very least, those same protesting students are the core of tomorrows society; and they will have long memories. Toxteth II is a distinct possibility.

[Ali Qadoo]

The thing is, is this country actually worth fighting for as things are?
Guzlin makes an excellent point. My decision to leave the RAF at my 38/16 point was largely based on exactly the same question and the answer I came up with was a resounding no - (1994 - yes, KOS, I know...). Then as now a Conservative-in-name-only government was strip-mining the defence budget in a vain attempt to buy the favours of an electorate which, by and large, knows little about the armed forces and cares even less. It saddens me to see it happening again and how much worse things are this time round.

[Postman Plod]

The majority of the population will do sod all though - they've been numbed into a compliant zombie like state as the government suck their blood and give less and less back to the people who need it, and more and more to the people who least deserve it.

The country is ripe for radical extremist exploitation - and I mean perhaps extreme right wing feeding on a simmering resentment that may mean that - rather than explicitly vote for it, they won't vote against it, sleepwalking into something very bad.

[Pontius Navigator]

Really nothing has changed. I was in a pub in Chester the night news of Kennedy broke. A retired sqn ldr aged no more than 40, on learning that I was a newly commissioned fg off gave me a word of advice. Oddly a year later, entering my first operational mess I was given the same word of advice by a copilot.

RESIGN

[VinRouge]

Diablo,

re toxteth 2 - which is exactly why any damage done to public property should be left - no money for repairs to facilities if the locals want to behave like animals.

I cant believe they discussed using water cannon on the students - in December in freezing conditions, it would have cleared the streets in an hour.

[draken55]

Forces prepare for axe to fall on fighter jet fleet in drastic cuts package - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8279447/Forces-prepare-for-axe-to-fall-on-fighter-jet-fleet-in-drastic-cuts-package.html)

I know it's in the Telegraph and may well be tripe but just so readers are all aware:uhoh:

[Finningley Boy]

Gee Whizz, politicians I wouldn't give you an old lampshade with a hole in it for 'em. Only last week the denial that the review would be revisited was issued.:mad:

FB:)

[SammySu]

So, scrap one fleet of 80 jets to save 1 billion, because, and I quote CAS, it's not big enough to meet our needs. Keep fleet of 134 jets at cost of 7 billion. Then shortly after cut said fleet to 20 jets less than the other efficient, capable , flexible and cheap fleet you've just removed.

Couldn't make it up. Though the Telegraph may have.

[Squirrel 41]

SammySu

I'm an armchair spectator now, but this is depressingly predictable. Seems to be:

- Fail to make tough choices;
- Fudge a defence review;
- Fill gap with untenable assumptions;
- Declare victory!
- Publish document. (Get promoted).
- Repent at leisure.....

£300m would be saved if you lost about three GR4 Sqns and a base. If true - and I can well believe that the SDSR finds themselves £1bn short, though £1.6bn is surprisingly large - then it means a GR4 "force"of four(ish) Squadrons plus and OCU(ish), is depressingly possible.

And with all of the engineering at Marham, this would be curtains for Lossie, too. (Unless you move QRA(I) North from Leuchars, which is a whole other kettle of fish.)

Still, it's enough to do Afghanland and retain some element of a sub-strategic option. Not much of one, though.

Finally, though I would've given up a couple of Sqns of GR4s to keep MRA4, I can't see if this is the real level of required cuts that MRA4 would've made it back earlier on. An appalling situation.

S41

[haltonapp]

What I find depressing about the comments on loss of capability etc, and the anti government diatribe, is that the MOD has failed dismally to live within its budget, every project has a cost overrun and arrives late! Any company run like the MOD would be out of business! The MOD must learn to live within its budget and drive out waste. I mean does it really need two super capable and very expensive Typhoons to escort an Etihad airliner, which had a drunken abusive passenger, into Stansted!
In the past we were all sad when we lost our overseas postings to Singapore etc, but the service has to get real, someone has to pay, and I'm sure I am not alone in thinking I pay too much tax!
Get rid of few useless civil servants and senior officers, now there's a start!

[Finningley Boy]

That situation with the airliner could have turned out to be anything. Scrambling to Jet Fighters (without the adjectives) was nothing out of the ordinary. Although, I do believe in the normal course of events, the R.A.F. scramble one jet each time. The Americans uusally scramble two, as far as I'm aware. But they're much more gungho!:ok:

FB:)

[Not_a_boffin]

More importantly, MoD does not actually know where the money goes. Oh it will be aware that the budget for this programme is £Xm and that it spent £Y&Z on contracts A&B against that programme. However, (particularly when you root around in what was DLO) the actual service, thing, product purchased is very hard to touch, particularly when one adds in the RAB element.

I once saw an equipment IPT with a budget of tens of million with a line item against which was a description which no-one could actually explain what it was. That line item represented 25% of the entire budget.

Might actually be worth a root and branch review of the accounting system before butchering any more capability....

[Canadian Break]

RANT MODE ON. Please do not think I am an apologist for the Government - I am not - their latest measures have just cost me £16000 per year. However, people talk on this thread of them failing to make tough decisions - does anyone seriously think that axing Nimrod and Harrier, making servicemen and women redundant et al was an easy decision. People also talk of a root and branch review - that's what I believe is going on at the moment; the biggest review since the MoD came into being in the 1960s - everything is up for scrutiny. We have to shoulder some of the blame because for too long we have had VSOs and Senior Civil Servants who have shied away from telling the politicos what a mess the Defence Budget has been in; they have simply been content to push the problem a couple of PRs to the right so that the wheel doesn't come off on their watch. It will take time, because to rush it will result in more of the sort of B****x that we've had to put up with for years now. Circumstance will inevitably change, and this will cause parts of the process to start again i.e. you won't sell some very expensive hardware to an oil-rich country, so that reasonable assumption that you made a few weeks ago that there would be X billion coming in via Defence Sales to help fill the black hole is now no longer worth the paper you wrote it on - back to square one chaps". There is also the inertia to get over - the sceptics who say "yeh yeh, we've seen this all before". I really believe that this time it's different; the country is pretty much bankrupt. When the previous muppets came into power all those years ago they inherited a strong economy with money in the bank - and look how they left it. Yes, they are good for the Armed Forces - because they spend money they haven't got, just as they do for the Health Service, and Social Service et al. RANT MODE OFF - and I hope I haven't upset anyone. CB

[Canadian Break]

FB - ref your post No 58.
SOP is to scramble 2 for very good operational reasons.
CB

[The B Word]

Canadian Break

A good rant, Sir :ok:

If I ever have the misfortune to meet the squandering previous Govt "Champagne Socialists" of Bliar, Broone and Mandy - I would like to punch their ferking lamps out. The buck stops with those goons as far as I'm concerned. I feel sorry for Cameron, Clegg and Georgie Porgie for getting the biggest hospital pass known in recent politics - the blatant "scorched earth" policy of Nu-Labour in the run up to the election was bl00dy disgrace!

Tough decisions, yes, that affect us all to varying degrees. But we all knew that tough times were coming when the electorate voted Nu-Labour out of their country-crippling majority.

I just wish they'd do something about the banks paying back the money they owe (wasn't it £37Bn to RBS in 2008?) before paying out bonuses (I think it was £1.5Bn within RBS last year) - seems a bit squiffy otherwise :=

The B Word

[casino335]

I know it's silly late:eek:but what the heck (that's just an excuse for any bad grammar that usually springs up in my posts).

I think, but I guess it's pretty obvious, that there will be quite a few more cuts in PR 11 - kinda like the SDSR is the heavy punch:ouch: that conditions you for the smaller jabs that follow on, but the smaller jabs over time become more painful than the initial punch:ouch: (okay, a sloppy analogy).

Seems that there could be a maddening logic in raping the GR4 force in Lossiemouth and then closing Lossie, as the GR4 force reduction has yet to be decided. The only thing I know is I'm getting really, really sick to death of seeing the righteous face of Cameron, in what seems to be groundhog day, waffling on about we are in this together for the national interest:oh: - OK, Dave, kiss me quick before you shaft me next time (if there ever is a next). He's a rogue states dream, the prophet of terrorists, as he's doing more damage to the average Joe:ouch: of this country than they could ever achieve. What rogue state or terrorist could ever wipe out a good chunk of an enemies airforce in one foul swoop? Damn, I know we are bankrupt that's why we write juicy cheques to the EU and in foreign aid to try and buy some so called business. Can't we just cash in OUR chips for RBS now if things are really that bad:confused:

Ok, Labour had the gold and turned it to dross:mad:, but I still can't feel an ounce of sympathy for Cameron, who's worth £30 odd million, and whose every move seems to be solely political and hell bent on bending over for the big co*k of big business and investors. I can understand cuts having to be made, but not in the style they are being done. Surely, NHS dentists filling away on £300k/yr, NHS consultants on £100k+ (with same amount again in overtime), police still procuring new BMW X5's and 5 series cars is perverse. Just cap max. public sector pay at £80k - if that ain't enough cream then go to private sector you greedy so and so. I really was proud of this country many, many years ago and enjoyed it, but quickly I'm finding it more of a farce, a bad joke and a bad taste. Bottom line is I don't see a brilliant light at the end of the tunnel..... Aussy visa application form, anyone? Sorry, for flying way off topic at silly speed.:(

[LFFC]

RAF fury at Army call to scrap jets (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/227376/RAF-fury-at-Army-call-to-scrap-jets).


BRITAIN ought to ditch its Tornado jets as a cost-cutting measure, according to the country’s most senior officer in Afghanistan.

General Sir James Bucknall’s briefing to Whitehall a fortnight ago has caused ructions among senior RAF officers, still reeling from the loss of Nimrod and Harriers, who fear that their entire force of fast jets will be reduced to just seven squadrons.

[Capt P U G Wash]

As the senior UK commander in Afghanistan he could not have made such a comment surely. If he did then he cannot have the confidence of those under his command, which can only mean one thing........

Is this the same man who has worked for Gen Richards in a number of past appointments (ACGS and MA) - still acting as his poodle perhaps?

If any of this report was true, then using a current military operation and his position of authority as an opportunity to undermine another Service is nothing short of treason.

[Melchett01]

General Bucknell's 'alleged' comments sound about right and simply serve to yet again demonstrate the army's parochialism and ignorance that I come across every day in my current post, and which does nothing other than double the amount of nugatory staff work required to sort out their perpetual tantrums.

If it doesn't revolve around their own tiny bit of the map in Afghanistan then it's irrelevant, and if anybody dares say no or point out the realities of the resource and manning situation then they are obviously not supporting the war effort.

DD24.5C has hit the nail squarely and very firmly on the head in suggesting that the Army might want to get its own house in order before criticizing its Sister services. As a result of their inefficiency and belief in their own self-importance and that they and they alone are the key to UK defence and security, we have had to mortgage the entire UK armed forces for the next generation to put a bde's worth of combat power on the ground in the short term. Grossly inefficient.

I'm not a vengful person, but I am almost persuaded to stay on past my next option point if only for the schadenfreude associated with watching the Army's world unravel post-2015 when it is scrabbling round for an meaningful role other than exercises and being a paper deterrent.

[Capt P U G Wash]

I do not think that there remains any doubt that the Forces are now significantly out of balance. The Army have used Afghanistan as their justification for avoiding the hit, but that argument has now run its course. You do not need an Army of 95,000 to deliver circa 3,000 combat troops. With the political desire to withdraw quickly it is air that will allow transition to take place not UK boots on the ground. It is Afghan boots that need to take their place now, with ISAF air support as the angel on their backs.
However, asking for cuts from another service is exactly what we should not be doing now – we will be no better than Bucknell otherwise. It would be a disgrace if a senior commander in an operational theatre uses his position to play inter-Service politics back at home. I wonder how Petraeus would feel about having a deputy who does not have his whole mind on the job?

[alfred_the_great]

this anger from the RAF about other Services "briefing against them" is hilarious. You'll forgive me as I laugh at the irony.....

[Capt P U G Wash]

Alfred,
I think you will find we are very used to be being briefed against (despite the protestations of others); it has been a National sport since our formation.

That was not the point I made. The issue here is that this comment is attributed to the senior UK Commander in an operational theatre. This is not whingeing from the wings by retired admirals, generals or marshals; it is far more sinister than that.

[BEagle]

A senior RAF officer said last night: “The Army is deflecting its own inefficiencies by placing the spotlight on another service. The whole situation has become a knife fight in a phone box, with each service trying to gouge chunks out of the other while protecting itself.

Why do people pay any attention to dim-witted, pig $hit thick, sandaholic pongo Generals? They'll probably have bugger all to do, apart from ponce about on horseback in London, once their current North West Frontier military adventure ends - so any long term view from their alleged General Staff (or whatever the latest descriptor is) should be firmly ignored.

The army which actually does the fighting on the ground needs all the support it can get. Internecine wrangling between purple star officers is pointless, divisive and ultimately destructive.

[LFFC]

I guess the RAF should have expected it!

Navy fury at 'underhand' Army tactics in defence review. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8046309/Navy-fury-at-underhand-Army-tactics-in-defence-review.html)

[Capt P U G Wash]

This no ordinary Pongo, he is the deputy ISAF Commander
British troops will hunt Taliban's winter hideouts, says senior officer | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/21/british-hunt-taliban-winter-hideouts-afghanistan)

Mind you, I wonder if he realises what gives him these things he quotes: "We have remarkable target-precision that is causing significant attrition to the insurgents'
"Very often we have lacked the reach and the legs and the resources to go after them in those areas. I think we can expect a mixture of conventional and special forces operations to continue to disrupt the insurgents in those areas in the winter months."
If he raised his eyes just once from his parochial view he might start to see the wider contribution that UK provides with assets such as the Tornado. We have been deficient in combat air in theatre for a while now - try getting a senior soldier to ask for more at this stage of the UK defence debate.

For if he thinks he needs such capabilities for the Camapign then his comments can only be timed to coincide with PR11 and deflect attention from other areas of Defence.

If so, we have here a General who is prepared to put soldiers lives at risk in order to achieve "lower" aims.

[alfred_the_great]

PUGWash, you're right. He's got the balls to say it in public, instead of hiding behind "a Senior RAF Officer says"....

Face it, inter-Service briefing happens; all 3 Services do it, and it'll never stop. The Politicians don't like it, but then they do it themselves, so all in all, it's part of the great game of life.

[Capt P U G Wash]

Alfred, I agree. But it is one thing to do it in the back streets of Whitehall and Fleet Street and quite another to do it whilst engaged with the enemy!

[Stu666]

Given that one of the Red's primary purposes is recruitment, what is the point in funding them seeing as we are rapidly approaching the point of not even having an airforce? Public relations I hear you say, but can we really afford it?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Given that one of the Red's [sic] primary purposes is recruitment, what is the point in funding them seeing as we are rapidly approaching the point of not even having an airforce [sic]? Public relations I hear you say, but can we really afford it?


Now there's an interesting one. Perhaps this deserves its own thread. Maybe we could call it "Time to bin the Reds?" or something similar...

[Compressorstall]

Oh f***ing hell. This is where jointery leads - one service feels it can criticise the other. When will people get their heads round the fact that there is a war on. The Army - efficient or not fights on the ground - the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy support them. It seems that The War has given the Army the idea that they are more important than anything else. The most important asset is the young bayonet on the ground, but without the Fires/Logs/ISR/MERT/etc he can't do his job. Combined Arms is actually an awesome concept, it's just a huge shame that we have to spend our time mirroring those w***er politicians that we feel we should continually justify our relative positions by criticising those around us. I have sometime questioned the Army tactics which have seemed wasteful and pointless, but I have equally seen RAF and Navy people behave in the same way. We are markedly different from civilian professions, I just fail to see whay we have to behave like the self-serving people out there who can't see that they are important in their own right without having to pour scorn on the contribution of others. Let's all get a grip and remember what we are good at.

[Jackonicko]

Great. So when a senior Airship is quoted as saying that an eight squadron FJ force "worries the hell out of him", all hell breaks loose and it's said that he's been "quoted out of context", and yet Bucknall comes out with this lunacy and there's nary a ripple.

[Capt P U G Wash]

What is worse is that he is using a distortion of the operational case to try and influence wider home-based decisions on Defence funding. I don't think I have ever seen anything more distasteful. Jacko is correct, where are the cries of indignation - is it the fact that it was in the Sunday Express, or is it the influence of his Protector? CDS should speak out or he is guilty by association. If not, it didn't take long for his Purple crown to slip did it?

[Finningley Boy]

The Army - efficient or not fights on the ground - the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy support them.

It is not the role of either the R.A.F. or the R.N. to support the Army other than in instances where it is called for. But I agree that the current conflict in Afghanistan has led the Army, coupled with the financial pressure on the defence budget, to try and present itself as the "only service". Its got some supporters, people who I'd have thought would ken better. Max Hastings demonstrated he can be as sweeping as any tabloid journalist when the incident involving the patrol boat crew from HMS Cornwall in the Gulf hit the headlines. If I recall he said that the Chief of the Defence Staff post should be permanently held by an Army Officer. More recently, he has suggested that the only obstacle to disbanding the R.A.F. is a lack of political will.

And he's a Historian!?:confused:

FB:)

[Jackonicko]

And he's a Historian!?

He's a twunt.

[cazatou]

Jacko

How can you say that about the man who single handedly liberated the Pub in Port Stanley?

[LFFC]

Lookout! More cuts incoming!

MoD To Announce Further Defence Cuts (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Defence-Minister-Peter-Luff-Announces-Further-MoD-Cuts-Because-Of-Budget-Shortfall/Article/201103215949037?f=rss)

The Ministry of Defence will shortly set out which further areas of military expenditure will be affected by the cuts of October’s Strategic Defence and Security Review.

Defence minister Peter Luff said the full impact of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) on the MoD budget from April onwards has yet to be fully spelled out.

It is likely some new military programmes will be affected.
"Perhaps it is our fault for failing to make our position clear - we thought we had told the outside world," Mr Luff told Bloomberg's Business Week.

"The big decisions have been taken; the fundamental assumptions won’t be changed, but there were unallocated savings identified which were a matter of public record and which we now have to find."

The MoD has been forced to reduce its expenditure by 8% over the next four years.

Cuts already announced in the SDSR include reduced aircraft numbers for a single future aircraft carrier and the possible mothballing of a second carrier.

Last week Defence Secretary Liam Fox announced that up to 11,000 service personnel risk losing their jobs.

"We always said it would take more than two planning rounds to sort out the full financial consequences of the inheritance we had," Mr Luff said.
The coalition Government has said there is a £38bn defence budget shortfall inherited from the Labour Party.

"There are a whole stack of options on the table which we are still looking at and I’m not going to rule in or out any one of them," Mr Luff added.

However the minister would not be drawn on the further extent of cuts expected to hit the MoD.

When asked if further cuts would total £1bn Mr Luff, who is responsible for defence equipment, support and technology, replied: "It depends on how you define it."

[GrahamO]

However you look at it, the public will not accept cuts to the branch of the forces who are losing good people every day while the other two branches lose nobody.

Overly simplistic - yes.

Hard to argue against though. How do you argue doing less about the death rate on the ground, to keep some additional capability which might be used one day, maybe, perhaps ? Thats why the Army is affected less.

[Door Slider]

GrahamO,

Very very simplistic and a bit stupid too. By your rational, since the AAC and CHF have lost less people in Iraq and the Stan than the RAF then they too should be disbanded???

[Easy Street]

GrahamO,

Your argument can be turned completely on its head. "Boots on the ground" carry a high political risk - as you point out, the government feels the heat as soldiers die week after week, year after year. This does not inevitably lead to prioritising the Army above all else.

Air and sea power carry less political risk in their employment and are therefore arguably more useful, especially for an island nation. I believe the future appetite for enduring troop deployments will be minimal - and if they do happen, they will most likely be under the UN or EU banners.

Partially-relevant quote from Robert Gates last month:


In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined


If the Americans are thinking like this, what do you think our government are thinking? The Army are deluded if they think they are going to escape the pain once we're out of Afghanistan. Future interventions will be just like the original (successful) bit of HERRICK - SF supported by air/maritime.

[Finningley Boy]

However you look at it, the public will not accept cuts to the branch of the forces who are losing good people every day while the other two branches lose nobody.

Overly simplistic - yes.

Hard to argue against though. How do you argue doing less about the death rate on the ground, to keep some additional capability which might be used one day, maybe, perhaps ? Thats why the Army is affected less.


Best thing to do here is pull every lask man Jack and Jill out of Afghanistan. To be frank, it won't matter a jot to U.K. Security if we do so. It will I accept, make a dreadful difference to the people of Afghanistan, once the Taliban flood back. But no way should our country follow the alarmingly ill-advised path of invoking a Binary Shift in the Military balance from the Navy and Air Force toward the Army! I understand that is what is being alluded to here.:E

FB:)

[GrahamO]

Very very simplistic and a bit stupid too. By your rational, since the AAC and CHF have lost less people in Iraq and the Stan than the RAF then they too should be disbanded???I did say it was simplistic, but you have avoided answering the main point. If you have a fixed sum of money would you be happy, and I mean happy, to tell the wife of a fallen soldier on the ground that he died in a substandard vehicle, or incomplete body armour, so that the RAF could keep some assets which might one day be important, in a theoretical threat, but today are not going to save lives ?

To answer your questions though, yes, I would if I had the above choice, as long as it would save more lives than the closure would cause. To do otherwise would be stupid.

Tough call.

Not stupid at all. The government is not solely driven by RAF priorities and demands - they are elected by us, and sometimes that means that saving lives today is more important than a worry about tomorrow.

Thats the bit a lot of flying chaps seem to struggle with - the RAF can big up all their self-importance but today, on the ground, the public do understand and don't agree that RAF toys for tomorrow programmes are more important than lives being lost. If the RAF were actually fighting an air war, the situation would be very different, but its not.

[Easy Street]

GrahamO:

you have avoided answering the main point

I think you avoided addressing the subsequent point made by myself and FB, namely that the national interest may not be best served by spending more money on our HERRICK ground forces...

[NURSE]

Maybe a question that needs answering is what level of armed forces can the United Kingdom sustain both in terms of both money and manpower. I know the RAF hasn't had to recruit heavily from the Commonwealth. But if commonwealth & Gurkha recruiting were stopped what level of Army could be sustained by recruitment from the United Kingdom? That would impact on the size of airforce needed.

[GrahamO]

The public at large disagree with your statement - the public do not want dying land forces 'in the national interest', so the RAF can have more money to spend on platforms which are incomplete.

And it is the public who largely decide which politicians get elected and hence what is in the national interest. Backed of course by the press who reflect the public mood that deaths of army chaps on the ground to keep Nimrod et all funded is not 'in the public interest'.

[Jabba_TG12]

"However you look at it, the public will not accept cuts to the branch of the forces who are losing good people every day while the other two branches lose nobody."

I think you'd be quite surprised Graham, just what the public will accept. So long as it isnt happening to them.

I'm reminded of the old analogy of putting a frog in a saucepan of cold water and then heating it slowly. So long as they're not being forced to watch said frogs being tipped into a vat of boiling water...

After all, look at what happened nearly 10 years ago with the fuel protests, sealing off the delivery depots. And that was with fuel at half the price it is now. See? The slowly boiling frog effect in action...

I think you'd be amazed how much further you're going to have to yank Joe Public's chain before he or she realises. Nobody gives a t*ss any more about anything, not just the services, unless they are directly affected.

[mosquito077]

GrahamO,

Have you lost the plot? Your arguement appears to run, soldiers getting killed on the ground today therefore must buy new kit to prevent that happening therefore must scrap well developed projects from RAF and RN? Please tell if I have got that wrong?

You then additionally indicate general public will not tolerate soldiers being killed and vaguely connect that with scrapping Nimrod Mr4a (which I think has had some 8 billion invested - not sure of exact sum but I know it is huge).

Come on Graham please step back a minute? Everyone is appalled at any loss in Afganistan but some of these platforms could make a difference in that war and as we see on a daily basis coping with future conflict.
What money is not being spent on every form of technology to look after all the troops on the ground (and I include from all 3 services)? I suspect no matter how much money is spent the IED is going to remain the threat to folk on the ground. Perhaps do some reading up on the Vietnam war as well - money spent, technology versus simple insurgent tactics?
Your arguement as you admit is simplistic but so much so it is dangerous. May I suggest do not belittle your brothers in arms but set your targets on why there is not enough money (now) and how UK spends money in many other areas (now and in the future). I am not in a position to fully understand how MOD got itself in such a mess but I suspect some senior officers and CS's should be blushing.

As one of posters made clear future conflicts are going to be very differant and come 2014 the axe will be swinging your way. The key will be flexible agile forces - Land armies of 95000 which can only deploy a fraction of that will be well and truly fairly game for the people in suits (at that point).

To finish - why don't you ask the general public whom you seem to know so well, will they pay 2p or 3p more income tax per pound to help buy new kit in Afghanistan - why do you think politicians have ducked that issue - because it is not a vote winner perhaps? SDSR was nothing more than a rushed botched stampede to save money quickly (front load the pain so the voters forget in 4/5 years time). All of defence has suffered stupid cuts, the severity for the Army has been a little more delayed due to Afghanistan..........

Mos

[Capt P U G Wash]

“If the RAF were actually fighting an air war, the situation would be very different, but its not.”
What is your definition of an air war: the Battle of Britain?
The RAF has almost every single capability in its inventory deployed in Afghanistan. In many ways, this fight is an air war just as much as it is a land war. Perhaps you forget how we got in there; how we move and how we protect soldiers under fire.
The fact that our aircraft are relatively immune to Taliban attack is not a reason to denigrate their efforts or funding.
If we did not have the overwhelming advantage provided by air over the soldiers in Afghanistan we would be taking many more casualties.
Just so that we can judge how your master plan would work, perhaps you could tell us what you would spend any extra money on in saving Soldier’s lives. And when you do, tell us whether some of that money might be found from the 50,000+ Army personnel who do not deploy and the multitude of tanks and artillery that is sitting in hermatically sealed huts.
The UK’s future security cannot be decided around the relative value of one service over another in the current conflict (a conflict that is more discretionary than you realise); it must be made on a balanced requirement to meet the Country’s needs, now and in the future. As the PM demonstrated recently, he thinks that includes being able to enforce NFZs; he has already cut the RAF beyond the point where we can do that in any meaningful way. The recent Nimrod R1 reprive is one very obvious case in point.

[minigundiplomat]

The fact that our aircraft are relatively immune to Taliban attack


You speak for yourself there Fella - We regularly have to sweetalk the Engineers into speedtaping up the holes and reattaching wiring looms.

Other than that - GrahamO seems to be on a very dim and very distant planet. Obviously a senior RAF officer.

[Capt P U G Wash]

mgd, I said "relatively". That was not to dimninsh the very brave flying that goes on lower to the ground. Thankfully, using Graham O's measure of worth, these incidents mostly turn out well, if not a little nerve racking.

[F3sRBest]

Oh please everyone can't you see that GrahamO is actually trying to play back a view of the general public (and that's what politicians pay heed to) not his own view!!

Very very simplistic and a bit stupid too

Absolutely it is! That's a good description of the UK general public after all.

[Climebear]

General Karl Eikenberry, the Commander Combined Forces Command Afghanistan in 2007:

Without air and space power, 500 to 600,000 troops would be needed in Afghanistan to achieve the same effects as the 40,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen we have there today. Air and space power provides the asymmetric advantage over the Taliban such that no matter where they choose to fight, coalition forces can bring to bear overwhelming firepower in a matter of minutes. Moreover, putting 500 to 600,000 troops into the country may achieve the same military effect, but it could have a negative impact on the population; such numbers could appear as an occupying force, rather than a security assistance force. In short, there is no substitute for effective air and space power.

[Shack37]

For anyone who missed it and are interested in watching, the SDSR Committee session of 9th March is being repeated on the BBC Parliament channel tonight (Sun 13th) starting at 1900. It includes the interviewing of Messrs Hague and Fox.

[BEagle]

Thanks for that - I shall give it a miss though.

Listening to Hague droning on always reminds me of Michael Palin as 'Eric Olthwaite' in Ripping Yarns:

"It were always raining in Denley Moor, 'cept on days when it were fine; and there weren't many of those - not if you include drizzle as rain. And even if it weren't drizzling, it were overcast and there were a lot of moisture in the air. You'd come home as though it had been raining, even though there had been no evidence of precipitation in the rain gauge outside the town hall..."

'A boring little tit'....

[andrewn]

Yes SDSR does look rather dated already.


The flexibility offered by a CAG would now be useful
Disbanding any GR4 squadrons seems flawed
ISTAR cuts don't make any sense either
Further cuts to either AAR or AT capability are not wise
Outside of SDSR then Nimrod R1 withdrawal has already been "postponed"; likewise premature rundown of F3 before sufficient Typhoons are available was a mistake.

I'm sure there's more.

Let's just hope there's no more unexpected events - as that really would cause some headaches....

[4Greens]

If they can clear the runway at Hal Far, get me my Venom back and supply a fixed wing trained Observer, I will attempt to fill the gap.