More cuts coming?

[Biggus]

Does this mean there will be further cuts in the Defence spending in the next two years?

BBC News - George Osborne plans new spending cuts 'to fund schools' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20592600)

There is no mention of Defence being "protected from the latest squeeze", so one can only presume that it isn't.

Indeed, why should it be?

[Roadster280]

Splendid fishing expedition - "Indeed, why should it be?"

Taking things right back to basics, if you found a nation, the first thing you have to do is defend it. Everything else is built from there. Education, health, pensions, social services, none of this is of any priority if your nation is under attack. The UK has been under attack from terrorism for pretty much the whole of the last 45 years. Not to mention war with Argentina and colonial disputes (e.g. Sierra Leone).

Then there's the small matter of large numbers of British expats influencing the world's industries in places that might become a tad warm. Of course they could all be warned off and brought home, but then the world influence diminishes, and the UK comes under political attack.

Despite all of this, if one still believes there is no threat to the UK or its interests that require a robust military capability, then by all means cut defence spending. Again.

How's that for a bite?

[Courtney Mil]

How's that for a bite?

Pretty good. So you've told us (quite correctly) how it should be, now how about how it's going to be. Don't confuse logical argument with probable outcome around here!

[Roadster280]

Ah, but I am one of the expats. "Not my problem, Guv'nor".

My biggest problem is the Fiscal Cliff political abortion. The very definition of dick-waving brinkmanship.

I'm afraid you'll have to sort your own bag of ****e out, ours is overflowing.

[Melchett01]

Does this mean there will be further cuts in the Defence spending in the next two years?

Apparently not, according to the Telegraph:

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence will be given more flexibility to retain funding that it has not spent, which last year amounted to almost £400 million. As a result, ministers believe that there will be no cuts to military manpower or core MoD budgets.

Even if they wanted to make further cuts, I just don't know where they would be able to find them. We are now less than one brick deep across many areas of my current unit and are struggling to meet core tasking let alone do anything fancy or above and beyond. I suspect that isn't unusual taking a broader view.

[Biggus]

Actually I wasn't fishing, but believe what you want..

I made an observation, based on a news article that mentioned certain specific exemptions to budget cuts, but made no reference to Defence. I then asked a question based on that observation.

My last question was almost an afterthougt, a throwaway line. Why should military be exempt cuts being made (generally) across the board. Funding on the military could be seen to be a form of insurance policy, and people generally have the level of insurance they feel they can afford, and go for the cheapest cover possible - who doesn't try to get a cheaper car insurance policy when it comes around to renewal time...

If you consider that comment "fishing", that is your choice, not mine!

[dctyke]

When we are out of Afganistan and Germany there is going to be an awful lot of Army kicking around the UK........ easy target for cuts.

[Wrathmonk]

When we are out of Afganistan and Germany there is going to be an awful lot of Army kicking around the UK........ easy target for cuts.

Sadly, there is also going to be the perception that there is a lot of RAF kicking around the UK. And with not much left of the Navy to "sell off" it isn't going to be pretty.

[Phoney Tony]

Here is a plan.

E3D - scrap ac and send crews to NATO to fly the E3s they do not need.
SENTINEL - scrap as planned.
REAPER - UOR - scrap.
RJ - cancel.
SHADOW - UOR - scrap.

Close the ISTAR hub.

Savings will be considerable.

[Kitbag]

Savings will be considerable.

As will the embarrassment factor for HMG

[LFFC]

This looks like another plan:

British Army's fleet of Apache helicopters 'could be scrapped' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9722347/British-Armys-fleet-of-Apache-helicopters-could-be-scrapped.html)

But anyway, what you've really got to watch out for is tomorrow's mini budget:

Autumn Statement: public-sector workers earning £30,000 face tax on pensions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/9722288/Autumn-Statement-public-sector-workers-earning-30000-face-tax-on-pensions.html)

[glad rag]

Confused, thought we had the "best" Apaches?

[Melchett01]

Phoney Tony,

I can't quite decide whether you posted that with your tongue firmly in your cheek or whether you are serious. The RAF has a long and proud history of intelligence collection capabilities that have served us well at both the strategic and tactical levels, stretching back to the post-war period moving right the way up to current day. What you suggest would kill that capability overnight - and bearing in mind that recent ops have shown that we no longer do airpower for the sake of airpower i.e. we are usually a supporting force, I'm fairly sure that many of our 'customers' would have something to say about it.

That said, it's such a ridiculous suggestion, that it might just be a seriously considered option by some of the politicians out on the lunatic fringe.

Glad Rag ... we do / did - after the Americans of course. But the US are stopping supporting the D model which we have and are going on to the E model. This is really a non-story but the sensationalist headlines have whipped up a frenzy. Given that the UK has limited organic capabilties to support AND develop the Apache moving forward, there are 3 options. 1. we can either keep the Ds going at best endeavours until they become irrelevant and dangerous on the battlefield through their non-compatability (certainly not overnight); 2. we can develop our own industrial base to try and upgrade over the years (I suggest would be complex) or 3. we can just upgrade to the newer E model.

Given our prowess at attempting to upgrade our own Chinooks, I suggest buying the next model will be cheaper and quicker in the long run.

[cokecan]

from an Army standpoint, the pointy bits of the RAF could go - keep the lift, mobility and ISTAR, and we'll use Artillery to make up for the lack of Paveway or Brimstone...

when was that last - non-friendly - RAF air to air kill again...?

sadly of course, Sandy Parts is correct, future directorships at BAES/LM et al focus the mind of senior crabs, and sod effect.

[Phoney Tony]

Bloke down the pub told me formation of Typhoons or JCA could do all the ISTAR stuff so no need for heavies.

Glad my current ward has padded walls to keep me safe!

[Melchett01]

You may just have a point there Sandy Parts!

But one other aspect that didn't occur to me last night was that not only might our 'customers' complain, I can see our allies also complaining. I think we acknowledge that we will never be able to provide mass kinetic effect, but we are right up there when it comes to providing niche capabilities e.g. ISTAR and AAR. If the US wants to start looking west more than east and expects NATO's European contingent to start doing more on its own doorstep, then I think RAF ISTAR will be a critical capability.

[Professor Plum]

Phoney Tony,

What planet are you on??!!

Seriously!

Have you any idea of Reaper/Shadow operating costs vs Typhoon/JCA?

Have you any idea of RJ capability vs Typhoon/JCA?

And thats just starting with the very basics! Suggest you remain within your padded walls!

[Phoney Tony]

PP,

The answer to your questions are:

Earth.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Bloke in the pub told me so it must be right.
Do you know better?

Nurse is coming to take me back to the ward now.

[Avtur]

Plum,

have you? Interested to hear your cost per hour analysis for the platorms you mention, and your process for comparing apples to oranges.

Start-up vs steady state costs for each would be helpful.

[Onceapilot]

Melchy, think we (UK) are about to effectively lose the AAR capability for anything more than core requirements. Experience shows that you need more than a couple of AAR assets to achieve flexibility and cope with surge type situations, no matter how over-expensive or shiny your "new" toy tanker is.

OAP

[HAS59]

Shadow and Sentinel should probably go after Afghanistan and I suspect there will be some cuts to the Tornado force.

What, if anything are we planning to use the Reapers for after we withdraw/retreat from Afg?

[Melchett01]

What, if anything are we planning to use the Reapers for after we withdraw/retreat from Afg?

That's a dangerous line to take if you actually want to retain a military at all. Given that the entire UK military has been mortgaged to Afghanistan, you could rephrase that question as what if anything are we planning to do after we withdraw / retreat from Afghanistan?

Of course, given the plethora of threats and the future concepts for military operations being developed by the likes of DCDC, the answer to such a question can be found in the NSC strategy and future concepts work.

[Heathrow Harry]

once we're out of Kabul I'd expect the Army will start to feel the pinch

but I wouldn't trust any politician - a 1% cut will mean some cuts somewhere - probably in the "non-core" section

lay up/sell a couple of C-17's for example

[Pontius Navigator]

There is a non-core?

TGIAO

[HAS59]

After Afghanistan there’s a lot of army kit going to be left behind (MRAP’s etc), apparently it’s too expensive to bring it back and it’s theatre specific anyway. Then there’s the RAF UOR stuff that’s not funded after 2015 (Sentinel, Shadow & Reaper), but that’s not cuts that’s just not funded so something else has to give.
Can they scrap the Voyager at this stage? Do we need as many Chinooks as we have/ordered? How safe is the Puma upgrade now?
What do we really need to meet the defence tasks of the immediate future?
I bet nobody has all the answers, least of all those in charge of the dosh.

[Melchett01]

Given the importance of the Middle East, I really don't see why we don't have some sort of permanent presence there, above and beyond Al Udeid.

I'm not necessarily advocating the standing up of a new Middle East Command, but it wouldn't exactly be a bad idea. It could be a bit like 6 Div was - more of an administrative base which can be ramped up as required for operations. Lease a big enough bit of desert in some reasonanbly friendly country with a coastline nearby, develop an airstrip and park all the kit you might need in the future there rather than lugging in back and forth.

Or would that be a bit too close to common sense?

[Bismark]

Just out of interest, what protects UAVs from a half-sophisticated enemy. With the current actions of Iran against Scan Eagle the Reaper post Afgh could become a white elephant.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

How safe is the Puma upgrade now?


Not very, IMHO - quite apart from the financial woes, the recent delay makes the upgrade less and less good value for money, because the planned service life of the Puma 2 is already somewhat modest.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Given the importance of the Middle East, I really don't see why we don't have some sort of permanent presence there, above and beyond Al Udeid"

because the locals loathe the idea - and we'd just be a target

[Heathrow Harry]

"There is a non-core?

TGIAO"

I guess...... quite a lot of kit is committed to Afghanistan

Will we need all those Chinooks?

Do we need all the C-17's if we are back in Europe???

Others have already fingered the UOR stuff (tho I think the Govt have fallen in love with drones - no pensions, no bodies, no dependants)

Apache upgrade is likely - they can operate off non- carriers and maybe all we'll have left offshore if the F-35 and/or the carriers are cancelled

[Bob Viking]

Melchett.
Politics aside I think your idea is a work of genius. You will clearly never make it to Air Rank!
BV

[Spanish Waltzer]

...if you believe the latest spin there's nothing to worry about...stacks of cash available so we wont even notice it...:rolleyes:

U.K. Defense To Face Cuts Over Next 2 Years | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121205/DEFREG01/312050004)

[Melchett01]

Bob, as a rule, I generally have about one moment of clarity per week. I think that was this week's. I do hope the Boss isn't expecting too much in the way of clarity or inspriation tomorrow.

Heathrow Harry, I was thinking of somewhere along the lines of UAE or Bahrain, somewhere we already have a defence relationship with and who might already be interested in or be in the process of buying kit. Oh I don't know, say Typhoon.

Plus, there are many Middle East countries who are, how shall we say, very pragmatic and the concept of like / loathe doesn't often come into it as long as a suitable mutually beneficial arrangement were negotiated.

[high spirits]

Spanish Waltzer,
Frightening article given what we have endured already. Figures of 245 million cut next year and 490 million the next look a bit skewed. Surely 1% is 340 million and 2% is 680 million by the words of the article, or has this taken into account this years underspend. Either way, it doesn't look good for the whiteboard projects.....

[Phoney Tony]

HS,

The budget cuts, though, are back loaded with total spending reducing from 34.1 billion pounds this year down to 34.1 billion pounds next year and 33.5 billion pounds in 2014. Equipment spending, though, actually is planned to go up over the same period.

The whiteboard stuff should be ok if I read the article correctly. In fact probably more likely.

I will check with the bloke in the pub.

[Onceapilot]

Tony, oh yes, there will be a whiteboard but, no pens!

OAP

[HAS59]

Maybe it’s just time to call a halt to the whole RAF now. I served it for forty years and watched it being cut away to almost nothing around me.

I think I’m right in thinking that Trenchard’s big idea was to form a proper Air Force out of the Independent Striking force (long range bombers) taking with it the army co-operation, scouting, fleet defence and patrol elements of the RFC and RNAS.

Well we have no long range bombers left except the Lancaster.
(The Nimrod MRA 4 might have been one but…).
Our last twin engine medium bombers (Tired out Tornado’s) are in their last years (months) of service. We have bought generations of shiny new fighters and shot down … nothing (except a Jaguar by accident).
We have Transport aircraft to move a large army we don’t have to places we don’t want to go to.
Helicopters: we’ve got Merlin’s we are going to give to the navy, Chinooks to move nonexistent troops around unknown future battlefields and poor old Pumas. Nice new ‘Tankers’ that don’t tank, AWAC’s to find exactly what for our fighters to shoot at?
Oh and lots of drones as their cheap and ‘trending’ at the minute.

Maybe we should give all the choppers to the army, fighter bombers to the navy and scrap the rest then we can reset the clock to 31st March 1918….

[minigundiplomat]

The real problem is far simpler:

We have 'leaders' that don't lead, 'managers' that now only manage budgets, the people to succeed, but not the political will to win. We have less and less weapons, and more and more health and safety workshops, more intelligence, yet less assets to exploit it.

You can point to the public's fascination with talent shows, celebrities and lack of knowledge of the wider world. You can equally point to government mismanagement, civil servants or a national media with a 10 second attention span.

However, the blame lies in no small part with the RAF itself. In the 1990's the decision was made to stop promoting leaders and start promoting politically aware 'yes men' managers instead. Despite the few that slipped through the net, that is the largest contributory factor in our current woes.

[Bastardeux]

HAS59,

I don't think your point is anything unique to the RAF, or even Britain.

There was a study published recently, which detailed how, despite huge increases in funding, the US military has cut its force numbers massively and the readiness of its existing equipment to deploy is much diminished from the level it was at in 2001. I think the biggest problem lies in what we think technology can achieve for us; modern fighters are obvious examples of unrealistic specifications and budgets being developed because we think technology will make the design and manufacture easier, when it appears to be doing the exact opposite...even worse, they have eaten into everyone else's budgets! I can't imagine we would be in the same situation if we had chosen to develop a super F15, for example...or if the F35 programme was only developing 1 aircraft with a lesser EW capability and less data-linking capability. You could apply that to almost every one of our weapons programmes of the 21st century. IMHO, we've tried to make our gear capable of doing too much!

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

I just hope the majority of you are not serving because your morale is soul destroying.

[Biggus]

Alex Y,

I suspect a fair percentage of those posting on this thread are still serving, as for morale:

BBC News - Armed forces morale falls, MoD survey suggests (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19358572)

I think you will find it has been destroyed from the top down, not the bottom up!

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

If you are that pessimistic about the future then bang out. We can do without you. Leave the rest of us who actually approach our jobs professionally with a degree of positivity to stag on.

[Tiger_mate]

There is a difference between pessimistic and realistic. Optimism would be refreshing but needs to be built upon an equally realistic outlook. One cannot see at first hand the recent penny pinching events such as individuals AIP being investigated, and all three services imploding through economic restraint and remain positive about future direction.

[Biggus]

Alex,

On the basis of your last arguement, if the survey quoted on the BBC link is to be believed, you are asking, for example, 63% of Army Officers to "leave".


You don't know my personal circumstances. If your last statement was meant for me personally, rather than as a general one, then I find your comment little short of insulting. What gives you the right to say that either I, or indeed anyone who you consider to be pessimistic about the future of the military, isn't still doing their job professionally? One doesn't follow on from the other! Indeed, one can have a "degree of positivity" and still be unprofessional in the way one approaches one's job (NOT that I am accusing you of that!).

Personally I will attempt to do my job to the best of my ability until my last working day in uniform, out of a sense of professional pride if nothing else, whatever my other feelings may be.


Tiger mate's comment is very valid, one man's pessimism is simply another man's realism. It's all a matter of perspective...

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

I would just argue that it isn't all doom and gloom. We have been through a difficult period but as you say optimism must be built, and it starts by having some positivity yourselves. All three services are doing some tremendous good, both on an individual and collective basis. All too often we focus on the negative, which is not healthy when our main business is unpleasant enough at times. The constant whinging i encounter is from people who won't leave and try something else to better their personal situation.

But that is just my experience.

[Donna K Babbs]

Alexander,

I am assuming that your experience is limited. The cuts, changes and erosion of trust leaves many of us with little optimism. This is based on significant military service.

Biggus has more experience than most, on a range or platforms, and in many diverse roles.

[MSOCS]

He said any change was bound to create uncertainty but "morale on operations remained high".

"The resilience of our personnel should not be underestimated. We are nearing the end of a very difficult period in defence and hope to see morale slowly recovering over the next couple of years.

Of course one could reasonably expect fighting spirit to be high on operations. For many who serve it is exactly what they were trained to do and it is resourced better than most areas of Defence. Morale, as opposed to one's spirit, is more pervasive and it will be interesting to see where UK Forces' morale is after Afghanistan. I hope it recovers for the sake our fine men and women who serve but the 'end of a difficult period' has just been extended by the Exchequer.

[Kitbag]

Have to wonder whether Alex has completed his professional training yet?

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

Yeah I guess you are all right. What would I know after all...

My apologies for displaying an opinion.

[lj101]

Alex

Us 'oldies' were once 'bright young things' and maybe some of us should stop whinging and leave if we hate it that much but when you have families to support and your T & C's are ripped away, it's worrying.
Personally I have had a fab time and the only reason I wouldn't join now, is that the RAF probably wouldn't select me as they can afford to be choosey. I am not being modest in that statement either.

Out of interest, what branch are you?

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

I hoping for a place on officer training one day, but we will have to see what happens. There aren't many vacancies at the moment.

[Squirrel 41]

More cuts coming?

And the short answer after the 2012 Autumn Statement is "Yes." The longer answer from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/05/george-osborne-welfare-autumn-statement) is this:

The need to extend the point at which austerity ends to 2017-18 has required Osborne to set out further spending cuts worth over £31bn between 2014 and 2018 or a real-terms cut of 19% if health, schools and international development continue to be protected.

The size of the MoD budget means that if you were to protect it, you'd have to find £6bn or so from another Departmental budget, making the whole thing undoable.

So yes, I'd say that a "good" result would be limiting the next round of cuts to say £4bn p.a. - which is going to force some very tough choices. Trident replacement is likely to be at the top of the list given the costs and the bespoke capability that it represents, I would suggest.

S41

[Squirrel 41]

From the FT: Hammond faces defence budgets fight - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c11b0ba6-4093-11e2-8f90-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ES1ZTtdy)

And Conservative Home also have a view: Autumn Statement means less funding for Defence - and potential Budget rebellions from Tory MPs The Tory Diary (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2012/12/autumn-statement-means-less-funding-for-defence-and-potentially-even-fewer-troops.html)

It's going to be messy. Very, very messy.

S41

[minigundiplomat]

I hoping for a place on officer training one day, but we will have to see what happens. There aren't many vacancies at the moment.

The lack of vacancies is the tangible aspect of cuts and inability to manage manpower without surge and stall.

Fear not, with blind obedience and inability to see the plain facts when laid out in front of you - you will fit right in.

You just need to work on risk adversity and decision avoidance and you'll be in like Flynn.