SDSR 2016?

[Phoney Tony]

Having a major defence review in the synch and just before an election is not a good idea. Would a delay to 2016 be a good idea.

I am sure the can kickers would love the idea?

[Kitbag]

The General Election will take place on 15 May 2015, the SDSR will likely report after the vote sometime in October if the last one is anything to go by.
TBH the great British public won't give a monkey's after Afghan is officially finished and the size of the services now makes them an irrelevance amongst the electorate and to the political class as a whole


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Lima Juliet]

8% savings to be made is the rumour :eek:

[Whenurhappy]

...and in other news, the senior civil servant overseeing the SDSR 15 has now jumped ship.

[Stendec5]

Given the ongoing assault upon the British armed forces at the hands of a bunch of political scum (lib-lab-con) got me thinking about a book that was loaned to me a couple of years ago. The book was certainly food for thought two-ish years ago and has had me pondering since.
The book was called "How To Stage A Military Coup" and was written by David Hebditch and Ken Conner (the second gentleman was I believe one of the longest serving members of the SAS).
The book was a fascinating and, in many places rather droll look at a subject that has affected many countries (almost including France at one point) the knock-on effect of which has rebounded around the world.
But the really intriguing part comes at the beginning of each chapter and lasts maybe 2/3 pages in each case. This is a look at a fictitious coup carried out right here in the UK in the more or less, here and now.
It made me think that if the forces, and thus ultimately the nation, face oblivion, then all the old rules become null and void. Even the question of legality becomes ambiguous under such extreme provocation. The armed forces swearing allegiance to Her Majesty not a bunch of political rent-boys infecting Whitehall and Westminster (what power still remaining there having not yet been surrendered to the so-called EU).
Since Her Majesty (in the book scenario) continues in her position. The oath of allegiance is unbroken (OK, the lawyers would have a field day on this one) But who questions the victor?
The book is available on Amazon.

[pr00ne]

Stendec5

"..who questions the victor?"

I question your sanity, that or you are an eight year old!

What "ongoing assault upon the British Armed forces?" One of the largest defence budgets on the face of the planet with some of the most sophisticated and complex weapon systems in existence in the face of an enormous budget deficit and no military threat whatsoever. What kind of "assault" is that?

A military coup? There is only one definite outcome of a military coup and that is that you will have committed treason. You will be a traitor.

Why on earth would anybody in this country want to be run by the military? They can't even run themselves!

Oh, and by the way, the "so called EU" actually is the EU.

Some people...

[Roland Pulfrew]

Wahhay pr00ne's back

What "ongoing assault" on the British Armed Forces?

Err, this one (https://www.army.mod.uk/news/24264.aspx)?

Or this one (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25854374)?

Or even this one from PPRuNe (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/535108-raf-fast-jet-combat-squadrons-80-reduction-since-gulf-war-i.html)

Even this from your favourite newspaper (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/16/robert-gates-uk-military-risks-being-underspent-force)
:rolleyes:

[pr00ne]

Roland,

Those aren't "assaults," they are merely downsizing, as decreed by the uniformed Top Brass, and why not in this day and age, after all, why do you NEED an Army any larger than 82,000 regulars and 38,000 reservists, more than 7 or 8 fast jet squadrons and 30 odd major warships, what would they all do?

We have a military that will be adequate for our needs, which is currently invading Middle Eastern countries and right royally fcuking them over.

If we only needed UK home defence, then something between Eire and Austria would do.

The Observer is my favourite paper...

[Surplus]

I question your sanity, that or you are an eight year old!

If he's an eight year old, could he please tell me what school he's attending? I'd like to send my son there, he has a good English teacher.

[Bastardeux]

no military threat whatsoever.

Have you not been following the news recently?

We can all debate about whether Ukraine is really our place to get involved in, but what about Estonia?...a NATO member and as of today, also a country black listed in the club of nations oppressing Russian minorities; there is only one other member of that club so far, can you guess which one?

[pr00ne]

Bastardeux,

Why does what is happening in the Crimea affect the size of the UK armed forces? You planning on invading Russia? Cos if you are the ONLY military that you will need will be the Trident SSBN fleet.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Those aren't "assaults," they are merely downsizing, as decreed by the uniformed Top Brass

That's the best bit of spin I've seen in ages:D you are Alistair Campbell and I claim my £5. The figure was never set by the "uniformed Top Brass" they were set by a civil servant, without consultation with the Top Brass.

We haven't got 38000 reservists, and I have yet to meet any army officer who thinks that 38000 reservists, even non-deployable ones, is anywhere near viable :rolleyes:

[Bastardeux]

Why does what is happening in the Crimea affect the size of the UK armed forces? You planning on invading Russia?

Where on Earth have you got that idea from?

I'm saying we have a commitment to NATO and our wider European defence, which the United States is, quite rightly, getting fed up of providing for us because we would prefer to spend our money on social behemoths.

Russia clearly doesn't respond to soft power and our hard power bluster is completely unsubstantiated because we simply do not have the assets to back it up...one of their ships sat off the coast of Lossie, for a couple of days, before we could do anything about it, FFS.

We have a resurgent Russia that is willing to bully Europe into doing what it wants. The West has done as near to nothing as makes no difference to punish or deter it from invading Crimea or Eastern Ukraine. So what next in the mind of Putin? Moldova? Estonia? Any other former Soviet states?

I can only assume that you are not serving, otherwise you would be all too aware of the fact that there is a gulf between government rhetoric and what we are actually able to achieve these days.

[Melchett01]

What "ongoing assault upon the British Armed forces?" One of the largest defence budgets on the face of the planet with some of the most sophisticated and complex weapon systems in existence in the face of an enormous budget deficit and no military threat whatsoever. What kind of "assault" is that?

The fourth largest defence budget in the world - if you believe the politicians, but one that is rapidly heading towards hollow force status thanks to whatever combination of poor contracts, excessive costs, political meddling and senior officer incompetence. Seems a fairly successful assault to most people still serving. Oh and not my words, but borrowed from a former CAS I had dinner with last week who, despite his retired status, remains as sharp as a tack and is equally concerned about the current state of things.

A military coup? There is only one definite outcome of a military coup and that is that you will have committed treason. You will be a traitor

Interesting take on the concept of a coup there. I mean, it's not as if the west has jumped on the bandwagon in recent weeks to champion the overthrow of a democratically elected President. So, hypothetically, what would the difference between the Ukraine and the UK be if the next government tied is closer to Europe against the wishes of the public, and the public forced that government out without another election? A revolution, a coup? Call it what you will, there would be outrage at the subversion of the democratic process, but that's what we are all championing in Ukraine at the moment.


We have a military that will be adequate for our needs ... If we only needed UK home defence, then something between Eire and Austria would do.

And there in lies the nub of the problem. Due to political grand standing and the ready acceptance of the concept of being a force for good, we need to be capable of more than home defence, so what we have isn't really adequate at all if you want to talk about force maintenance and sustainability as well as generation.


Why on earth would anybody in this country want to be run by the military? They can't even run themselves!

I will give you that one though :ok:

[Archimedes]

That's the best bit of spin I've seen in ages:D you are Alistair Campbell and I claim my £5. The figure was never set by the "uniformed Top Brass" they were set by a civil servant, without consultation with the Top Brass.

We haven't got 38000 reservists, and I have yet to meet any army officer who thinks that 38000 reservists, even non-deplorable ones, is anywhere near viable :rolleyes:

Are the non-deplorable ones those who use a knife and fork when eating sandwiches in the mess?:confused:

[Roland Pulfrew]

Are the non-deplorable ones those who use a knife and fork when eating sandwiches in the mess? I guess so. Thanks Archimedes.Bloody predictive text!!

As an aside, if there was a military coup, supported by the majority of the electorate and "we" kept HMQ as Head of State, would we be traitors and have committed Treason? Isn't treason the act of betraying one's country and/or plotting or attempting to overthrow the Sovereign?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

8% savings to be made is the rumour

I think the Treasury needs a lesson in percentages, re savings

8% of the F-all that's left, is F-all

[gr4techie]

We have a military that will be adequate

You know there's a difference between adequate and over stretched.

[Party Animal]

Leon,

8% savings!!

No need to name your snitch in MB but please tell us more?

[Bastardeux]

How is William Hague going to go into the NATO summit trying to convince European countries to increase their defence budgets, if we continue to cut ours!?

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/europe-russia-defence-idINL6N0MG5HA20140319

[The Old Fat One]

Ironic (or perhaps sad would be a better word) that most of you are going after pr00ne because of his political beliefs rather than the infantile rant by stendec5, which caused pr00ne to post.

@pr00ne. I suspect you and I have different views on many things but on this you are 100% correct...

There is only one definite outcome of a military coup and that is that you will have committed treason. You will be a traitor.

Any member of society (military of otherwise) that does not get that is at best a misguided fool and at worst a criminal. We live in a democracy...anybody want to live in a dictatorship or totalitarian regime, there's plenty to chose from and most of them would be glad to have you aboard.

[Squirrel 41]

I don't know where the question about coups being anything other than treason comes from, but TOFO and pr00ne have more than adequately covered it off.

On SDSR: post yesterday's budget, two posts are firmly in the ground. One, that under Osborne, state spending over the medium term will fall to 38% of GDP or so, the lowest since the 1940s. Martin Wolff in the FT is good on this this morning (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7f009e6-aba9-11e3-aad9-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2wQA1luBv). With an ageing population and ever increasing cost of new healthcare treatments, this translates into much tighter budgets for everything else.

Or not quite everything else: Osborne committed himself to maintaining the overseas aid budget at 0.7% of GDP, despite the fact that there is no evidence behind this number. This will, however the budget gets divided up, impact on the amount that MoD will get. I expect to see some push back on it from the thinktanks, but unless there's a major row, it won't change.

S41

[VinRouge]

Rationed NHs provision for those older than normal pension age would solve the deficit in an instant. It's pretty much what NICE are up to anyhow.

[The Old Fat One]

Nothing solves an economic problem in an instant old chap. Usually because every action has a reaction...intended or otherwise.

Caring for the elderly - Western style - is expensive, however you do it.

[tucumseh]

Rationed NHs provision for those older than normal pension age would solve the deficit in an instant. It's pretty much what NICE are up to anyhow.

A more acceptable first step would be to rationalise the "postcode lottery". For example;

My very elderly mother receives injections every month for macular degeneration. The "lottery" means she must pay £50 a time to get to the hospital and back, 40 miles away. Frankly ludicrous for someone on their own and essentially blind.

If she lived here, the NHS would send a taxi, but not pay for the injections.

Which to standardise across the country? That is the question for politicians and what they're paid for. But both "savings" are deemed broadly acceptable by politicians of the same colour. It would certainly raise the profile of the gross waste in public services, and perhaps persuade Parliament to consider outlawing deliberate waste in MoD. That waste, and the certain knowledge most of it can be avoided, is what makes the Treasury right when seeking to cut our budget. Trouble is, they don't apply the same rules to the NHS, so their waste is even worse.

[Stendec5]

ppOOne. I would suggest that you get your head out of your, doubtless ample, posteria, and actually READ the post again. You sound like a typically odious system puppet.
The British Armed forces are shrinking to the point where they are becoming unable to do their job. Too few of everything, and yet more cuts to come. This threatens the very existence of this nation should a serious crisis blow up (as history shows they often do). I suggest that YOU, not I, fit the bill of "traitor" (is that what you called me?) only you're probably too dumb to see it.
I love my country and it breaks my heart to see what you're apparent friends have done/continue to do to it.
As I said, if you actually read the post instead of ranting like a political broadcast by the B/S Party, you would see that I didn't advocate a coup as such, but was simply commenting on a book that was loaned to me which, in MY opinion (remember the "democracy" you seemed so keen to defend?) has some highly intriguing ideas.
No doubt you like to burn such books.

[pr00ne]

Stendec5,

Nothing ample about my 'posterior' thank you, but I'll thank you to mind your own goddamned business.

An 'odious system puppet?' If only you knew...

The British armed forces are NOT shrinking to the point at which they are becoming unable to do their job just because you say they are. As they are currently only deployed in one theatre to the tune of 4,000 personnel until the end of this year I hardly see that we have 'too few of everything.' WHAT do you want more military kit for?

As to threatening the very existence of this nation, how? That is total BS and you know it.

I said that anyone proposing treason is in my opinion a traitor.

How do you know who my 'apparent' friends are? How on earth do you know what my friends have done to this country? I see nothing wrong with this country and am not aware of any of my friends ruining it in any way.

I certainly do not like to burn books, as a Barrister I rather rely on them.

Bye.

[Party Animal]

Pr00ne said 'WHAT do you want more military kit for?'

Speaking as a UK citizen, I would like a long range Maritime Patrol Aircraft please.

The UK currently has nothing to provide fast, agile and semi-permanent long range ASW defence of our SSBN and new carriers which in my mind means an unacceptable risk to both the Strategic Deterrent and our nations aims of having a serious strike capability launched from the maritime environment.

I would like our country to have the ASuW ability to detect, identify and if necessary destroy threats to our interests coming from both blue water and the littoral in an acceptable time frame. I ask myself, just how would we cope with a 2nd Falklands invasion launched by Argentina?

I would like the ability for Defence to be able to support OGD's against a maritime terrorist threat to our island as well as bolstering the meagre assets of the Border Force Agency.

Finally, as a tertiary role, I would like to see the UK having the ability to offer SAR cover within our internationally obligated SAR region which extends out to 30 West as well as being able to provide the best possible service to those in need in a 'Piper Alpha' scenario.

I personnaly find it appaling that as an island race with international maritime obligations and 90% of our trade transported on the ocean, we do not have this capability. Events in the Southern Ocean merely add to my anger.

Does that answer your question?

[Easy Street]

The British armed forces are NOT shrinking to the point at which they are becoming unable to do their job just because you say they are. As they are currently only deployed in one theatre to the tune of 4,000 personnel until the end of this year I hardly see that we have 'too few of everything.' WHAT do you want more military kit for?

As a Barrister you undoubtedly realise that your point hinges upon a contention that armed forces should be scaled according only to the needs of current operations. This would be quite a novel approach to defence policy and it is mischievous of you to use it as a basis upon which to attack other views without first offering it for debate. In the absence of other learned friends I think you were rather hoping that your straw man would be accepted, aided by a bit of lawyerly swagger in the incorrect capitalisation of your profession. It would behove you well to use your intellectual horsepower to contribute to the policy debate instead of using it to take cheap shots at others; from your lofty perch you appear to disregard the notion that there might be members of lower-case professions capable of engaging on your intellectual level.

[Roland Pulfrew]

As they are currently only deployed in one theatre to the tune of 4,000 personnel until the end of this year I hardly see that we have 'too few of everything.'

As a barrister, surely you should realise that making unsubstantiated assertions doesn't make them into facts either. You need to do a bit more Googling to check up on your facts.

The British armed forces are NOT shrinking to the point at which they are becoming unable to do their job just because you say they are. Nor does you saying otherwise make it anymore true! The British Armed Forces certainly can't do long range maritime patrol any more; in a year or two they may not be able to do significant elements of battlefield recce, nor the comms fleet task, and any number of other tasks/roles. I would say that is shrinking to the point that they are unable to do their job.

[Red Line Entry]

We seem to go round this buoy on a fairly regular basis. Those advocating the need for additional equipment and/or manpower often present logical and informed argument (Party Animal for example). However, if the UK were to procure such items then there is a simple choice:

a. Allocate more money for Defence, or

b. Reduce/delete an alternative capability

The reality is Joe Public is not clamoring for more money to be spent on Defence. Indeed, if anything, his expectation seems to be for less. The politician class are very good at reading the pulse of the Nation, as (with a few notable exceptions in history) they tend to follow public opinion, rather than shape it.

So that leave us with option B. SDSR15 is likely to play out with intense debate over the merits of our existing and planned ORBAT, so perhaps it would be useful for those posting who believe we should have more of X, to explain why they also think we should have less of Y.

[Melchett01]

Red Line,

You're correct in your statement that, to put it very bluntly, funding is dependent on political expediency and the desire to either be a 'force for good' or the desire to reduce the number of body bags coming home. Once we have achieved the former, the latter will be the inevitable corollary.

However, the desire for politicians to appear statesman-like will never diminish, and so the military will be deployed at every opportunity to support that aim. Buy with that responsibility must come resources. If there is little to no appetite to resource the military - all arms and services - so that it is capable of being that contingency force, then you need to add a third option to your list: do less.

Ever since the politicians have tried to run the military like a business, they have focused on the numbers and the bottom line. I accept that we, like all Depts should live within our means if we are to be a sustainable force, but maybe those means need to consider factors in addition to numbers on a spreadsheet such as the human element. You can have all the exquisite capabilities you want, but they will be ineffective unless they are appropriately manned.

Our bottom line is not found on a spreadsheet, it is our ability to generate operational capability and most importantly, to ensure that the same numbers of people and aircraft/ships/tanks come home as deploy. Only when that happens do the books balance in my eyes.

To hold a military as a contingent force, with large parts of it being held at readiness with an expectation that they can deploy and execute political direction at the drop of a hat is expensive. It requires a significant investment in training, logistics and human capital if you are not to burn through your people in one or 2 turns of the handle i.e. for it to be a sustainable capability. Those advocating a purely spreadsheet driven approach would do well to remember this in these uncertain times. After all, if you ask your household insurance company for a policy that covers a limited range of risks for a short period, you will then no doubt be surprised when the premium sky rockets when you change the policy to cover all risks and eventualities 24/7.

The politicians need to decide what policy they want and as well as being directed by public opinion must also inform it so that the masses actually understand the repercussions of their wishes. With regard to Defence, I'm sad to say they are not doing that very well at all, probably because there are now no votes in it and those body bags are thankfully getting fewer in number.

[vascodegama]

I would say the problem is that SDRs or whatever the latest phrase is do not actually address the main problem; they are simply cost cutting exercises. Politicians of all colours have failed to match the 2 up. At one end of the scale we could adopt a defence policy akin to say Sweden or Switzerland or at the other we could get involved as the world's policemen. Unfortunately governments of all colours want the cost of the former with the influence of the other. It would of course help if we had a half decent procurement system.

[Red Line Entry]

I take your point Melchett, but the politicians decide how much they are prepared to pay for the insurance policy. When crises occur, then will then call the insurance company (the Military) and ask what can be done. Based on their premiums, the insurance company will explain the possible options from which the politicians choose.

You might think they will regret this in future, but the fact is that at the moment, the politicians are not prepared to pay more for their insurance policy.

Whether one likes it or not, our innate ability to deploy operational capability IS determined by the spreadsheet. It is naive to think otherwise.

BTW, a trip overseas that can "ensure that the same numbers of people and aircraft/ships/tanks come home as deploy" is called a Holiday, it's certainly not called an Operation.

[Easy Street]

the politicians decide how much they are prepared to pay for the insurance policy. When crises occur, then will then call the insurance company (the Military) and ask what can be done. Based on their premiums, the insurance company will explain the possible options from which the politicians choose.Yes, this is currently what happens, but unfortunately the insurance company in question has 3 divisions who are each competing for business from the other and are prepared to make unsustainable short-term offers in the hope of obtaining longer-term business for their division. So instead of the customer begging the insurance company for a payout, we have the unusual situation of the 3 parts of the insurance company begging the customer to accept their payout. No wonder the customer doesn't want to pay any more when he seems to be getting a gold-plated service.

Unfortunately the customer needs to be more intelligent in all this because the internal politics at his insurer doesn't actually result in an increased level of protection; it just fools him into thinking that he's getting what he wants. This has been the classic way of driving down the insurance premium (defence budget) but the quality of cover inevitably suffers.

I note that since the much-vaunted CSR the 3 single-service heads have maintained full staffs in Main Building and, at least in CAS' case, seem to spend more time there than they do at their Command HQs. To that extent, I'm not sure that the CSR is achieving its desired endstate of restricting the political-military interface to the CDS-Ops Dir-PJHQ axis...

[draken55]

"politicians decide how much they are prepared to pay"

And in 2010 they decided we could not afford fixed wing carrier aircraft for a decade and any LRMPA after having "wasted" funds on Nimrod.

We still have a large Defence Budget but unlike the case with say NHS spending, throwing money at something was deemed not to be the answer. That's the simple politics.

Post 2015 matters will not improve. Personally, I doubt we will run on Tornado once Typhoon is cleared to carry Storm Shadow. As for ditching early Tranche Typhoons, you can imagine the reaction from the Public to another waste of money. Much easier to get rid of another "old" type altogether as has often happened in the past few years.

[pr00ne]

Party Animal,

You of course are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and what you would like to see in the UK military, unfortunately when it comes to long range Maritime Patrol Aircraft, it would appear that the top brass in both the RAF and the RN disagree with you.
If they did agree with you, then I’m pretty sure that, out of the £63 billion allotted to defence purchases over the next 10 yrs ,plus another £13 billion for contingency purchases, they would have found the money!

I would imagine that we would cope a lot better this time around with an Argentine invasion (unlikely as that is) of the Falkands than we did in 1982!

As to you finding it personally appalling as regards our 90% of maritime trade, seeing as that comes in 100% foreign ships mainly owned and crewed by foreigners then I don’t see that the lack of a LRMPA increases our vulnerability one jot.

Easy Street,


Sorry if you think my points ‘cheap shots.’ I personally think that a Barrister possesses as much intellect as your average Taxi driver, and believe me I have NO beef against Taxi drivers!
Believe me when I say that I do not consider myself to inhabit any lofty perch.

As to scaling the armed forces according to the needs of current operations, where on earth did I suggest that? Less than 15% of the UK armed forces were deployed to Afghanistan and we have myriad capabilities and platforms that have not been deployed for a very long time, I am NOT suggesting that they be retired.


Roland Pulfrew,


You make a fair point re the 4,000. That was sloppy of me and of course does not take into account the other small scatterings in the Falklands, the Gulf, Kosovo and sundry other places. however, my main point remains, that we have only one significant combat deployment, of 4,000, and that comes to an end this year.

I still maintain that the UK armed forces CAN do their job, and seeing as we possess the 4th largest defence budget on the face of the planet, so they bloody well should! Is that money well spent? Is it well managed and husbanded? No, I don’t think it is but that is NO reason to spend more!

[kintyred]

Pr00ne

A great final paragraph that encapsulates the argument perfectly.

[Easy Street]

As to scaling the armed forces according to the needs of current operations, where on earth did I suggest that?

It was implicit in your reply to Stendec5, viz:

As they are currently only deployed in one theatre to the tune of 4,000 personnel until the end of this year I hardly see that we have 'too few of everything.'

because the number deployed on current ops is a relevant fact to introduce only if you think there should be a material connection from that to the overall size of the forces. If you agree that the size of our forces should be independent of the needs of current ops, then the number deployed is absolutely irrelevant.

Your later point - 4th-biggest defence budget, why spend more? - is one I agree with entirely, although I'd be interested to see whether other nations' nuclear deterrents sit on the headline defence budget. We and the French are also in hock to our own domestic defence monopolies who sell to us late and over budget, while militaries such as India, Saudi etc (and even, it seems, Russia - French ships) buy from the same companies at preferable terms due to the power of the export market. They have varying views on the value of attached to a life, so tend to have less of a safety, assurance and process overhead. And they're not all as fussed as Sir Humphrey about accounting for every last penny of government money, so can survive with small procurement and accounting arms. That's the way our money goes....

[tucumseh]

They have varying views on the value of attached to a life, so tend to have less of a safety, assurance and process overhead. And they're not all as fussed as Sir Humphrey about accounting for every last penny of government money, so can survive with small procurement and accounting arms. That's the way our money goes....


It is ironic that the most wasteful programme (RMPA/Nimrod 2000/Nimrod MRA4) failed because it did NOT adhere to “safety, assurance and process”.



If, in the early 90s, those responsible for oversight had adhered to Sir Humphrey’s regulations (in this case, those issued by PUS as Chief Accounting Officer), then it would indeed have been a “replacement”, instead of a modification of Nimrod.


Same applies to another money pit, Chinook HC Mk3.


Then look at the common denominators. THAT is where the problem lies.


It has been proven time and again how to deliver to time, cost and performance. It isn’t that MoD can’t do it. It is because they fear raising the bar so rail against those who do.

[Jabba_TG12]

I'm thinking he's probably more Barista than Barrister.

[Stendec5]

prOOne. The British armed forces ARE shrinking to the point were they cannot do their job. The RAF, for example until recently had the job of patrolling our sea lanes using the best aircraft in the world for that task. Now, due to the ongoing assault on the armed forces by the present political clique, the RAF is unable to do that job. This leaves Britain, a maritime nation, dangerously exposed. What part of that don't you understand?
The world is growing more unstable not less. The armed forces are the ultimate insurance policy against national oblivion. If those forces are reduced in capability/numbers/actual fighting prowess, to the point were they could not contest the field against a serious opponent because they lack sufficient trained manpower/sufficient numbers of ships/vehicles/aircraft/logistics, then those forces will be overwhelmed. The consequences for national survival would then become perilous indeed. That you regard such opinion as "BS" speaks volumes.
You think that spending large amounts of money absolves the rabble in Westminster? I've heared the same argument in regard to the NHS, education, social services etc. Whatever money is being spent, clearly it is NOT ENOUGH. Although a root and branch sort-out of defence procurement is long overdue.
Given that you sound like a typical PR man/person for the lib-lab-con, and are obviously rabidly keen to defend their record viz the "defence" of Her Majesty's Realm, it is not unreasonable to refer to those creatures as your "apparent friends." So I did/do.
"Anyone proposing treason is a traitor?" As Napoleon once said, "He who saves a nation violates no law." I myself, though unworthy to be mentioned in the same sentence as Bony. Fully concur.

[BlindWingy]

People forget that a strong Armed Forces gives you influence. Not saying its right - but look at what the Russians have achieved in Syria, Crimea and Georgia.

[tucumseh]

The RAF, for example until recently had the job of patrolling our sea lanes using the best aircraft in the world for that task. Now, due to the ongoing assault on the armed forces by the present political clique, the RAF is unable to do that job.


What caused cancellation of MRA4 is well known. The political input was the decision to upgrade Nimrod in the first place, but they were poorly advised by those in MoD who knew it was compromised from day 1.

The decision not to replace this capability, which is a different argument, must lie at the feet of both politicians and VSOs. The former will, quite rightly, be mightily pissed off at £5Bn being poured down the drain after MoD (and in particular RAF VSOs) made a point of first deepening and widening the drain. The latter say nothing, because the truth exposes their feeble leadership and poor decisions.

[Red Line Entry]

Stendec5,

While I respect your view that more should be spent on Defence (although I note you've ignored my suggestion to suggest where additional money should come from), you are unfortunately peeing in the wind.

A YouGov survey from January asked people: Thinking about the government's plans to make further cuts for spending, which areas should they cut the most?

Defence came fourth on the list (with 20% wanting to cut), behind Overseas Aid, Welfare benefits, and Environment; and ahead of Local Govt, Transport, Pensions, Education, NHS, and Policing.

The survey then asked what areas should be protected. Defence came fifth on this list (with 18% wanting to protect - I'm assuming a different 18% from the 20% who wanted to cut!).

So my point is that if only 18% of the population want Defence spending to be protected from cuts (forget about increased!), while 20% want it targeted and the remaining 62% don't care, then the plain fact is that short of a major war, Defence spending is, at very best, going to stay level (which will actually be a drop seeing as how our budget assumes a 1% uplift in the Equipment Procurement Plan post 2015).

Source: The spending battleground (http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/16/spending-battleground/)

[The Old Fat One]

RLE

Bloody hell mate...you're bringing facts, reasoned argument and research to the pprune military forum! Are you looking to get banned!

[glad rag]

I'll thank you to mind your own goddamned business.Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear....

[Stendec5]

Red Line Entry.

I would pay little attention to any survey carried out as their accuracy is questionable at the best of times (especially if you disagree with the findings), and anyway you can get very different survey results by a sly rewording of the question(s).
Where would I get the money from? For a start I would reduce the foreign aid budget to little more than a holding-fund. I would put aside a £1 billion fund to help any country that had been genuinely overtaken by some natural disaster with whatever humanitarian/rescue activities we might provide. Fine.
However, the idea that we should be funding myriad projects across the planet whilst imposing austerity cuts at home is unacceptable. That would release about £10 billions.
Secondly, I would wish to withdraw from the so-called "EU" at the very earliest opportunity (they're now asking for an additional £100 millions from the UK taxpayer) This would release an additional £8 billions. That's a very useful £18 billions for starters.
Of course it wouldn't all go defence, but it would release, in the short term, a substantial amount to be spent on those defence areas that have been most damaged in recent years (a renewed Maritime Patrol/ASW platform being an obvious requirement).
I would also get Mr Murdoch on my side. As Winston said "There's no such thing as public opinion. Only published opinion."

[pr00ne]

Jabba_TG12,


You would be kinda really wrong.

[Party Animal]

Sadly, I suspect the survey that Redders alludes to is probably very accurate although, it would support the views of Stendec 5 (and the vast majority of our population), to put Overseas Aid on hold at the very least.

I would like to see SDSR 15 supervised by a cross party committee that analysed the views of our Defence Chiefs but then made a STRATEGIC decision on what is right for the country, what is right for the next 20 years, how much it would cost and an acceptance that no matter which party was in power, the insurance policy of defence should be maintained and ring fenced funded accordingly.

What we actually got in SDSR 10 was purely a cost cutting exercise with in fighting between the 3 Defence Chiefs. A totally independant body should decide what is best for the UK, not an inexperienced minister agreeing to what our Defence leaders told him is best for the Army, RN and RAF in isolation. Perhaps a beefed up HCDC with teeth?

Then again, I'd like to see a political party that made strategic decisions on what is best for the UK long term, rather than pandering to short term voting to stay in power at all costs.....

pr00ne,

Quick question - when I'm trying to make a caramel macciato at home, how much milk should be mixed with the water and what boiling temperature should I use? ;)

[Stendec5]

Party Animal.

Great post.

[The Old Fat One]

Interesting piece in the Times today...echoes what many leading economists have been saying for years. Basically, austerity has not even started yet. What limited cuts we have seen so far do not even begin to address the problem...a view I personally very much agree with.

Also in the same paper IFS are trying to turn the spotlight on the public sector pension black hole which they estimate as 1.7 trillion...ouch.

Basically we had 10 years of the Blair government running a ponzi scheme, but before we descend into politics, even the right wing acknowledge that trying to meet the public's expectation of what decent public services (including defence) even look like is now impossible.

So whatever your political bent, you can expect a decade of more of even greater austerity that you have seen so far...and even less focus on defence.

That's the reality of the situation and no amount of outrage in social media will make a blind bit of difference. It would take a proper full on old fashioned war to do that.

[Squirrel 41]

TOFO,

The problematic point is that the Blair and Brown governments attempted to have European public services at low, US-style taxes. Worse, they allowed the tax base to become very reliant on narrow taxes on corporate profits and stamp duty. When these revenues collapsed, the result was an 11% deficit and spiralling debt - the bank bailouts didn't help, but wasn't the primary cause.

Ultimately, if the British people want improved public services then they need to pay higher taxes; for the same taxes, services will shrink significantly.

S41

[The Old Fat One]

S41

I don't think it is political issue and I certainly don't think taxation is going to get close to fixing this problem.

I mentioned the Blair government only because it was them that kicked off a huge increase in public spending as mandated by the electorate (that would be me, you and joe public). Both economics and society has changed since 2008 in the sense that we are better informed and more aware of the ponzi like nature of so much of our public spending. We have seen what happens to countries that effectively go bust and we have made aware of the giant elephant in the room caused by ever increasing longevity.

It does not matter a jot who is in power...we are facing endless austerity to the point where there will be cultural shifts in our economic society.

Bottom line for those on here...defence is going to get relentlessly hammered until somebody starts shooting at us.

[kintyred]

TOFO,

You are absolutely right. If the power were in my hands what I'd be looking for in the next review is why we're getting so little bang for our buck. For 2.5% of our GDP there's really not that much to show for the cash. Pr00ne's point about the poor management is a significant part of the problem and I would point the finger at both the politicians and VSOs, the former for being unable to resist the lobbying by defence contractors and the latter for not having the vision to request the equipment we actually need, rather than procuring for kudos or to protect their empires. If the politicians would define and prioritise the required defence capabilities then the most cost effective solution for each requirement could be calculated. As long as factors such as retaining cap badges, establishments, HQs, commands and inter-service rivalry continue to part of the equation we will continue to be royally screwed by our "defenders".

[Bastardeux]

The debt and 'endless austerity' is somewhat overhyped, yes there is a huge public sector pension burden, but that is spread over nearly 50 years and I'm sure if you had quoted the pension liability to someone back in the 70s, they would have been just as astounded as we are today. Moreover, as the post-war baby boom generation begin to die off over the next 2 decades, the burden on the state will actually ease slightly. Housing benefit is another example of a huge expense that has ballooned out of nowhere over the last few years, but there is now a cross party consensus that the housing market needs to be flooded with new homes, which will relieve the cost of rents, so that is an expense that is likely to subside over the long term.

The big headache is health as its demand is increasing and the costs of healthcare provision keep increasing exponentially...however, I think it's inevitable that some form of co-payment is going to be introduced for things like visiting your GP.

I'm going to reiterate a point I make quite a lot, there is money for the core government responsibilities, and there always will be, we just choose to spend such vast amounts on other things that the electorate has come (rather unreasonably, in my opinion) to expect from the government i.e. free TV and transport for every single pensioner WTF?

[Stendec5]

How can you have austerity measures and huge cutbacks all round when you "ringfence" £18 billions every year (that's a staggering £70 billions approx since the 2010 election) and send that money out of OUR country via foreign aid/the so-called "EU".
All that money being used to help every country except THIS one. As long as that insanity continues no one will convince me that there is a case for cutbacks here.
What is really needed is a root and branch clearout of the British establishment. How anyone could support these idiots is beyond my comprehension.

[Roland Pulfrew]

With all due respect, overseas aid is not really the issue. It's a comparative drop in the ocean next to the "social" and NHS budgets. These are the elements that need tackling. For as long as it's better to be paid not to work or for as long as the NHS remains the UK's sacred cow, unable to be reformed by any political party, then we are all up the creek.

Let's face it even Defence at a purported £40B is a comparative drop in the ocean in against to these 2 behemoths! If I read it correctly then MPs are voting to limit the non-pension welfare bill to £120B or 3 times the Defence budget!! Think about it, that's circa £2K for every man, woman and child in the UK. I'm not sure where "my" 2K is going.

[Melchett01]

Bottom line for those on here...defence is going to get relentlessly hammered until somebody starts shooting at us.

And by which point it will be too late. This week I have sat in 2 meetings where the issues of establishments and capability were discussed, and where the issue of submitting ABC 15 enhancements for both areas was raised.

The message that was put out by the Chairman & J8 Finance was that we were encouraged to submit any bids we wanted, but must be under no illusion that getting any of them accepted would be tough and getting any liability uplift for military personnel would be more or less impossible. However, if we requested an uplift for areas such as J1/4/6/7 then civilianizing posts would be considered. This is all apparently on the back of Centre direction (blanket?) that Defence's military headcount is to be reduced at all costs across all the Services.

I understand that we are still dealing with the drawdown and various Tranches of redundancy, but unless there is a move to allow the creation of military liability where required, I am concerned that we are going to end up with a 2 tier Defence. On the hand we will have a huge number of low grade Civil Servants (most of the submissions I have seen have had E2s and E1s - roughly cpl equivalent -being recruited to do the job of experienced SNCOs, WOs and in some cases JOs) doing 9-4, nothing above and beyond what is written in their TORs, no station duties and certainly not deploying. Unless the drive to civilianize wherever possible is checked, the huge number of civilians will be balanced out by an ever dwindling number of miltary personnel whose raison d'etre would appear to be little more than extra duties, deploy and take all the risk.

Seeing as we are supposed to be all one team, I can't see how this approach can be anything other than divisive with large number of people turning up to do the minimum required to fulfill their contracts (I realise there are also some that really pull out the stops, but they are in a minority in my experience) whilst all the risk and long days, missed leave and extra duties are borne by a shrinking number of military personnel who now also have limited opportunities to move into broadening posts as they have all been civilianized.

If the past few years and weeks have shown us anything, the unpredictability of events means we must have a balanced military capability. The continuity achieved by civilianizing certain posts is undeniably valuable, but there has to be a limit. The desire for Defence on the cheap by civilanizing and contractorizing everything that isn't nailed down, will at worst lead to an unsustainable capability. Indeed, I have no doubt that Centre would like all the CS and contractors to also join the Reserves so they can be mobilized, however, at that point all the 'support' and staff functions stop. But once that military capability is lost, we won't get it back, or if somehow we do, it will be inexperienced and no match for a hardened opposition should the unthinkable actually happen.

Not only is Defence not repairing the roof, they are now flogging off what few slates are left and replacing them with polystyrene tiles. So my question is just how far is too far when civilianizing military capability for the sole purpose of saving a few quid?

[The Old Fat One]

...but there is now a cross party consensus that the housing market needs to be flooded with new homes, which will relieve the cost of rents, so that is an expense that is likely to subside over the long term....

WTF :eek: I have not seen a single projection anyway that suggests we are likely to get a balanced supply of housing anywhere in the next 50 years. Where on earth do you get this stuff from, or is it just some sort of wishful thinking???

As for austerity being over-hyped...Stephanie Flaunders wrote a lengthy piece about this very issue circa 2010, before the last election. Basically she pointed out that the level of cuts needed to balance the books were so large they were simply not do-able - the public would never tolerate the public service levels left. That was fours ago and it was virtually word for word the same as the article by Daniel Finklewhatshisname in the Times on Tuesday. Osborne has been banging this drum incessantly over the past 12 months, although as a serving politician he necessarily sugar coats it.

Of course Labour could get in and start spending, but is that what we really want? Personally, if we are going to switch to the Greek model, I'd prefer to actually live there so i can at least enjoy the sunshine.

[Bastardeux]

WTF I have not seen a single projection anyway that suggests we are likely to get a balanced supply of housing anywhere in the next 50 years. Where on earth do you get this stuff from, or is it just some sort of wishful thinking???

Of course you haven't, besides being utterly irrelevant, how the hell would anyone be able to tell whether new build housing will be meeting new demand in 50 years time!? You can probably forecast accurately, at most, 5 years into the future and all those current forecasts rely on a model that assumes new housing construction will remain at current levels, despite the fact that it is universally accepted that there is a huge under supply of housing, hence why labour want to build at least an extra 200,000 homes a year if they win the election and why the Tories are planning an "assault" on lots of greenfield sites in the coming years.

As for austerity being over-hyped...Stephanie Flaunders wrote a lengthy piece about this very issue circa 2010, before the last election. Basically she pointed out that the level of cuts needed to balance the books were so large they were simply not do-able - the public would never tolerate the public service levels left

Departments need to find an extra £10 billion on top of what has already been agreed, after 2015. Hardly intolerable for balancing the books; the 'intolerable' budget cuts are necessary only if the pensions budget, in it's entirety, remains untouched and if healthcare continues on an unsustainable trend. Again, I have read many an article about how the only future for the NHS is co-payments...it's just a matter of who is going to be the one who finally ends it being completely free at the point of delivery.

[Roland Pulfrew]

it's just a matter of who is going to be the one who finally ends it being completely free at the point of delivery

Well one step in the right direction would be try and rein in the alleged £7B of theft and fraud each year in the NHS - there is most of the £10B.

cross party consensus that the housing market needs to be flooded with new homes

Yet again attacking the wrong problem. :ugh: The real problem is over-population; the UK (well mainly the South East and Midlands) has an unsustainable level of population. The UK is already one of the most densely populated countries in Europe and we are simply running out of space (based on the premise that you also need to retain farmland to feed the ever growing population, have to have space for roads and railways to get the ever growing poulation to work, need space for more hospitals and schools to support the ever growing population etc etc).

[pr00ne]

Stendec5

Please! It’s NOT the “so called EU” it actually IS the EU, and I don’t really see how increasing UK unemployment by disengaging from our single largest market place is going to help in any way in your little fantasy of huge fleets of shiny war fighting machines.

You have already been called to task over your obsession with the Overseas Aid budget, despite many valid arguments that have been made that, pound for pound, the overseas aid expenditure does ten times as much good around the world than the defence budget does. I for one am very happy that Governments of all persuasions are honouring our international commitments in overseas aid and am content that my tax spend is being spent on giving clean water to impoverished children, providing the most basic of health care to some of the poorest people on the planet and immunising children against diseases that in the first world have not been seen for generations. THAT is what defines a nation as great, not its ability to kill people.

glad rag,

Many thanks for your intellectually brilliant contribution...


Party Animal,

Why should defence be treated as some kind of untouchable insurance policy and not health, education and welfare? I agree with you over the political in fighting between the 3 services, but strongly disagree about any committee analysing the views of the defence chiefs before making strategic decisions. That is for the politicians to do and then the defence chiefs implement that policy with the resources allocated. It’s not as if we are in any kind of 1940 situation. If we were to have that committee make its decisions on purely UK defence matters, then we would end up with armed forces barely larger and more capable than those of Eire.

I also don't see the point of blaming the Blair/Brown Government for our financial mess. We were an integral part of a global financial system that simply demonstrated that it did not work. Where Labour spent on public services the Tories would have done the same but on Tax cuts, basic end point would have been the same.

I think that Bastardeaux is right in claiming that this endless austerity and budget deficit issue is indeed somewhat overhyped. We have plenty of cash for the basic core of public services, and whether we spend 0, 11 or 18 billion on overseas aid will not have any dramatic impact on that fact.

[glad rag]

glad rag,

Many thanks for your intellectually brilliant contribution...

:E

I have indeed seen the light brother.

:}

[Bastardeux]

The real problem is over-population; the UK (well mainly the South East and Midlands) has an unsustainable level of population. The UK is already one of the most densely populated countries in Europe and we are simply running out of space (based on the premise that you also need to retain farmland to feed the ever growing population, have to have space for roads and railways to get the ever growing poulation to work, need space for more hospitals and schools to support the ever growing population etc etc).

And just how do you suppose we alleviate this problem without exacerbating every other aforementioned problem? Even if we doubled the % of land that has been built on, it still only amounts to 4% of the total UK and we are no-where near self sufficient in agricultural production - not even close, so we are hardly on the verge of suddenly not being able to sustain ourselves. Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands aren't swamped with unsustainable development, are they?...their housing is much more affordable than ours too.

[t43562]

RE population density:

I think if you consider how urbanised the population is, the density is not all that significant. i.e. there may be lots of people but they're mostly bunched up in cities.
If, for example, you added a tiny bit of land area to a city and it would soak up huge numbers of people, leaving the countryside unaffected.

[Roland Pulfrew]

pr00ne - you really must be Alistair Campbell. I haven't seen as much spin since I last used my electric drill!

I don’t really see how increasing UK unemployment by disengaging from our single largest market place is going to help And there is no evidence that disengaging would do so. That is the exact scare tactic that the pro-EU politicians use - without any underlying substantiation!

I for one am very happy that Governments of all persuasions are honouring our international commitments in overseas aid and am content that my tax spend is being spent on giving clean water to impoverished children, providing the most basic of health care to some of the poorest people on the planet and immunising children against diseases That of course is based on an assumption that this where "our" tax pound is spent. Of course a lot of it is rightly spent in the way that you suggest, but that doesn't mean all of it gets through to the tarhget audience. And I would be much happier if all other governments matched our government's generosity.

Bastardeux

Lies, damn lies and Statistics - isn't that the saying? This is the actual statistic you were looking for:

Having looked at all the information, they calculated that "6.8% of the UK's land area is now classified as urban" (a definition that includes rural development and roads).

The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales.


That is of course "urban" and includes parks and gardens in town and cities. Additionally much of the country is uninhabitable, by which I mean too remote, too mountainous, too marshy etc to even consider building houses on. Have you tried walking on Rannoch Moor? Highly recommended, but not somewhere anyone is going to live for some time to come. If you rule out cutting down woods/forests, go back to banning building on flood plains etc you are rapidly elft with concreting over farm land - exactly the land we need to grow some (if not all) of our food. So the figure of 1 or 2 % that you quote just doesn't add up.

As for population and house building? Well that is going to be much trickier and would probably require us to cede from the EU. Managed migration is what is required and that means you have to be able to close your borders to all but those that "we" are willing to accept. It works in Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand etc so it could work here but it isn't going to be an overnight solution. What is undeniable, is the infrastructure (by which I mean schools, hospitals, transport networks etc etc) in the SE of England simply cannot sustain the expontential growth in population (one might argue that it has already gone past that point as one who has to commute in and around London and the Home Counties will attest).

Still this is way off topic and I apologise for the thread creep :O - so now back to SDSR 15 or 16.

[Phoney Tony]

RP,

Thanks for putting us back on track. SDSR 2020 will also be an election year so should we not decouple the 2 events.

Has anyone got a clue when SDSR 15 is going to be released.

[Biggus]

P T,

To the best of my knowledge (which has recently been proven to be rapidly becoming outdated!) SDSR15 is merely an intention of the current coalition government. Again, to the best of my knowledge, there is no formal requirement for a UK government to hold a 5 yearly SDSR, and I wasn't aware that the Labour party have stated their intention to hold one if they win the next election.

I can't see the coalition holding a SDSR before the election in May 2015, it would be a total waste of time and effort if they don't get back in.


Therefore options are:

Tories/current coalition re-elected - SDSR post may 2015.

Any other election result - who knows when the next SDSR will be?



One of the joys of pprune is that there is always someone out there who knows (or at least think they know) more than you - and they're normally very willing to prove that point. So no doubt my above comments with be either agreed with, or shot down, in the not too distant future.





By the way I have even mentioned what the effect a "yes" vote for Scottish independence this September would have on the possible timing/requirement/content of any future SDSR.

Interesting times......

[Finningley Boy]

I suppose SDSR 2015 or 16 will very much depend on the international climate at the time, regardless of what kind of make up of Government we have by then. Their response will be governed as much by their political mind set as much by circumstance.

pr00ne,

You are proof that how everyone sees matters all very much depends on their political stripe. I've never read anything suggesting that every pound we spend on overseas aid does ten times as much good as every pound spent on defence, apart from an interview with a Tory MP who alluded to this point. I don't know what unit of measurement has been used in determining quite such a precise comparison, but I've heard the line from the current Government, which I don't imagine you to be particularly fond of, is that what we spend on overseas aid is in effect money spent averting the need for military confrontation down the road into the future. Almost like some form of protection money. This suggests that if we don't spend on overseas aid, one day the otherwise beneficiaries will gang up on us and give us a good kicking. Before they do that they'll have to straighten out their economic plight surely!? And when they do I imagine they wont view our hitherto philanthropy as something to be allowed to get in the way of any wider disagreements.

Best Regards,

FB:)

[Stendec5]

Indeed. The obsession with lavishing huge sums of taxpayers money on myriad foreign projects is a political animal beloved of the "liberal"-lefties. I read of how a programme that subsidised pensioners swimming lessons in a UK northern town (cost approx £3,000 per annum) was axed to save money. But £2.2 millions to fund the building of library in Uganda was ok'd without hesitation. Just one example among thousands.
However, until these cretins have their grubby little fingers prized from the levers of power (one way or the other) this insanity will continue.
Also, given that 75% of our "laws" now emanate from the so-called "EU" the concept of democratic accountability is gradually becoming something more in the realm of nostalgia than fact.

[Phoney Tony]

Biggs,

Thanks. I thought there was a plan to have some sort of regular planning cycle.

[perthsaint]

75% of our laws emanate from the EU? Got a verifiable source?

[Danny42C]

Rudyard Kipling's "Natural Theology": (Pinched from "Poetry Lovers' Page"):

Progressive

Money spent on an Army or Fleet
Is homicidal lunacy. . . .
My son has been killed in the Mons retreat,
Why is the Lord afflicting me?
Why are murder, pillage and arson
And rape allowed by the Deity?
I will write to the "Times", deriding our parson
Because my God has afflicted me.

Chorus

We had a kettle: we let it leak:
Our not repairing it made it worse.
We haven't had any tea for a week. . .
The bottom is out of the Universe!

Conclusion

This was none of the good Lord's pleasure,
For the Spirit He breathed in Man is free;
But what comes after is measure for measure,
And not a God that afflicteth thee.
As was the sowing so the reaping
Is now and evermore shall be.
Thou art delivered to thine own keeping.
Only Thyself hath afflicted thee!

[pr00ne]

Roland Pulfrew,


There is ample evidence. Just read anything by the CEO of Toyota for example, who has stated that his car and engine factories are here precisely because we ARE in the EU, and that if we were to leave they would seriously reconsider relocating as they mainly export their products (85%) to the EU and would have no wish to be outside that trading area.
This would apply to a whole range of industries who manufacture in the UK and export over 80% of their products abroad, mainly to the EU.

Massey Ferguson closed down their Coventry manufacturing plant, resulting in 2000 job losses, and transferred it to France because the UK didn’t join the Euro!

The world is morphing into a series of huge trading blocks that will be dominated by very large and populous countries such as China, India, Indonesia etc. By trading as the EU we are a major player in that market and can trade and negotiate accordingly. As a tiny off shore island of Europe we would have no such advantage and would have no bargaining power with these huge trading blocks at all.
If the UK, or rump UK if Scotland goes its own way, left the EU, we would be an extremely small scale competitor to the EU who would see absolutely no advantage in giving us any form of advantageous trading relationship, why on earth should they, we chose to leave?

I do agree with you on your points on overseas aid, no argument there. I am sure that it could be better spent and the fact that we are going to stop aid to such places as India is welcome.

Biggus,

I think you are spot on with your reading of the status quo post election. There is no commitment from ANY party save the Lib-Dem/Tory coalition to a 2015 SDSR and if any party is returned with a working majority or if the coalition is anything other than a Lib-Dem/Tory one, then I think that the concept of SDSR2015 will be dead and buried.

The Scottish independence vote will have a huge effect on any potential SDSR, if those in Whitehall who are responsible for such things are not taking this into account then they are fools.

Finningley Boy,

Well yes, of course we see things from our own political perspective, though the fact that I HAVE seen a lot of NGO produced evidence of the ten times better spend effect of the OA budget as compared to the defence budget is not actually anything to do with my political persuasion, just reported fact. The fact that the Tories and Lib Dems are doing nothing to reduce it must mean that they agree too, it’s NOT just a Labour thing this OA budget you know.
I certainly am NOT very fond of this current Government, but am actually proud of their stance on a few things, overseas aid being one of them.

Stendec5,

Oh dear! “liberal-lefties?’ Really. You may not have noticed but we are currently governed by a Tory Party dominated coalition and it is THEY who are protecting the overseas aid budget.
75% of our laws emanate from the EU? Do you have any idea how old English Law actually is? I doubt if even 7% has been incorporated since the birth of the EEC, never mind the EU.

Finally, Roland Pulfrew, I have long thought that your Pprune monika is THE best that I have ever seen!

[Bastardeux]

other than a Lib-Dem/Tory one, then I think that the concept of SDSR2015 will be dead and buried

Despite the fact that many of my friends are working on it, as we speak? And despite the fact that the defence select committee talk about it as a virtual certainty?

SDSR 15 is going to be a properly thought out stretegic defence review (Or as far as it can be without a comprehensive national security strategy), based on different levels of funding and it will be up to whichever party that wins the election to choose a strategy based on whichever level of funding they so choose, not some arbitrary money saving exercise in the space of 3 months.

[pr00ne]

Bastardeux,

I have no doubt that a LOT of people are working on it, but it is the policy of the current incumbent Government, and if that Government is not returned in May 2015 then whoever is holding the reigns of power will have no obligation to do anything called SDSR 2015. There will be decisions to be made of course, decisions that are currently not being addressed politically ahead of SDSR2015, things such as a new MMA, what to do with the second carrier, Sentinel, and how many F-35’s to order etc etc.

But this will all be pie in the sky until the new administration has time to look at the books and decide how much it wishes to allocate to defence over the next five years.
Only then will decisions be made, and I’m sure that the background work being done right now will be utilised, but until we know how much money is to be spent, then it’s all just idle waffle.

[Kitbag]

From the introduction to SDSR 10:

1.3
We are committed to undertaking further
strategic defence and security reviews every five
years. One clear lesson since the last Strategic
Defence Review in 1998 is the need more
frequently to reassess capabilities against a
changing strategic environment. We must avoid
the twin mistakes of retaining too much legacy
equipment for which there is no requirement,
or tying ourselves into unnecessarily ambitious
future capabilities. We have therefore identified
the forces and capabilities we may need in 2020,
but deliberately focussed in this Review on the
decisions that need to be taken in the next four
years, and left to 2015 those decisions which can
better be taken in the light of further experience
in Afghanistan and developments in the wider
economic situation.


As to whether the new government has the courage to continue with cuttig our cloth to suit our purse is almost guaranteed from the above I think

[Roland Pulfrew]

prOOne

Thank you for proving my argument:

Just read anything by the CEO of Toyota for example, who has stated that his car and engine factories are here precisely because we ARE in the EU, and that if we were to leave they would seriously reconsider relocating as they mainly export their products (85%) to the EU and would have no wish to be outside that trading area.


seriously reconsider = we may not move at all
outside the trading area = we may equally be in the trading area but outside the EU.

no advantage in giving us any form of advantageous trading relationship, why on earth should they Perhaps because we import more from the EU than we export to the EU?

Continuing with your car industry analogy I saw quoted the other day that the UK imports £1.8B worth of vehicles from the EU (IIRC) annually, but we export only £1B worth - why would the EU wish to lose £0.8B worth of trade by messing around with trade agreements?

Massey Ferguson closed down their Coventry manufacturing plant but JCB has stayed and exports globally. Did I see a map recently that showed every nation that uses a JCB of some type and pretty much the entire globe was covered.

because the UK didn’t join the Euro - Thank God!!

your Pprune monika Are you calling me a girl?!!?? ;)

[Heathrow Harry]

there was an article in the Times this week pointing out that govt spending has to be returned to 1997 levels to balance the books properly

They reckon most of the easy stuff has been done and we still need to continue cutting until maybe 2018 or 2020 - and these will be very very painful cuts - NHS, Schools, pensions, universities and the armed forces

I'm not a great believer in SDSR's anyway - they always seem to be torn up after about 18 months

[Biggus]

Bastardeux,

I hope many of your friends are also working on what the MOD plans to do in the event of a "yes" vote in the Scottish referendum, which, if it were to happen, would drive a coach and horses through MOD policy for the next 10 years plus - it's called contingency planning, and it's what the military used to do all the time. Whether or not they still do so in this modern day and age...?

[Stendec5]

prOOne.

I would INCLUDE the present Conservative Party very much within the "liberal" left bracket. Even Maggie referred to her wretched underlings as "wets," and they've gone way downhill since those days. That is why they are hemorrhaging support left (pun intended) right and centre.
Yes, I AM aware how old English/British law is (why shouldn't I be?) Perhaps "regulations" or even "dictacts" might have been a better description. But most people, judging by surging anti so-called "EU" sentiment, would, I'm sure, get my drift.

[Jabba_TG12]

Pr00ne

Maybe I am wrong, I'm afraid that the position that you adopt is one that I regret to say just rubs me up the wrong way. I have very grave doubts about your defence expertise compared to a number of the other contributors on this forum.

I dont like your politics I'm afraid and I'm sure you probably dont like mine and you dont have to like them. I'm not seeking to convert anyone politically or extol the virtues of one party over another. Thats about the long and short of it, we're never going to agree and I'd rather just leave it at that.

[Bastardeux]

Pr00ne

Only then will decisions be made, and I’m sure that the background work being done right now will be utilised, but until we know how much money is to be spent, then it’s all just idle waffle.

You clearly have no concept of how it works, those people working on it provide different options for different levels of funding, so it becomes a case of the government choosing the strategy that has been laid out whichever funding level they decide to allocate to defence.

There will be decisions to be made of course, decisions that are currently not being addressed politically ahead of SDSR2015, things such as a new MMA, what to do with the second carrier, Sentinel, and how many F-35’s to order etc etc.

Yes, I suppose you can also throw further decisions on army relocations from Germany, further development of Taranis, firm Type 26 frigate numbers...oh wait, that's a strategic defence review.

BBC News - MPs 'concerned' over defence cuts (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26754076)

Labour's shadow defence secretary Vernon Coaker said..."In contrast, we are clear that a future Labour Strategic Defence and Security Review will be both strategically ambitious and fiscally realistic."

What were you saying about it being dead and buried?

[Easy Street]

both strategically ambitious and fiscally realistic

In plain English, "do more with less"! How original.

[Finningley Boy]

Since before the SDSR, it seems, any criticism of defence cuts posed to whoever is a member of the Government has been met by the same reply "we have the fourth largest defence Budget in the World" quite frankly, while this is always intended to silence criticism, it is I'm absolutely sure a damning comment to make. There is to be sure, a whole heap of explaining to do regarding how we demonstrably have so few assets and personnel, always getting smaller.

pr00ne always points to the credibility of assets and other difficult to deny facts given within the strictest confines of making a point, never placed in any more general or comparative context. Towit, today, and no doubted subject to closer scrutiny in itself, a comparison chart appeared in the Daily Mail, it compared Tanks unit for unit across six countries including the UK. It begins with America, naturally at the top with 10,000 the the second from the bottom of the chart is Switzerland with 380, finally, the UK with 227.

Where frontline aircraft are concerned I believe the comparison is starker, certainly when placed against similar comparison tables of 20 to 25 years ago.

FB:)

[dervish]

"we have the fourth largest defence Budget in the World"


I'm sure this has been asked before but does this compare like with like? The "Defence Budget" is about £40Bn but less than third is spent on equipment. A lot of it is pensions and salaries. When you look at it that way, the waste on the likes of Nimrod is a huge percentage.

[Heathrow Harry]

you have to pay people these days - hence the expenditure on salaries etc etc

Actually for too long we've spent too much on equipment and not enough on people - we never seem to have enough of the PBI around when we need them but we blow zillions on BAe kit that never works

[Bastardeux]

A lot of it is pensions and salaries.

Are you sure pensions come out of the MoD's budget? Nonetheless, your point is entirely valid. The manning cost (per person) for the Indians, the Chinese or the Russians are much, much lower, so they can afford a lot more bods for their buck.

Personnel cost the MoD approximately 33% of its budget and I would guess running costs take up another 3rd again, so what's left for procurement is actually that much.

[dervish]

Yes but my point is, do the headline budgets of other countries include the same things? Our government goes on about this as if we spend £40Bn on kit.

[pr00ne]

Well a few of you have unearthed some pretty substantial evidence that if Labour are returned in some form then they too will have a version of SDSR, so I suppose that it will happen one way or the other. Point taken.

Roland Pulfrew,

What’s wrong with being a girl? It’s not an insult. I rather guessed that you weren’t though, I just can’t spell moniker…

As regards the EU, my point was that the majority of our rather successful car industry is here precisely because we are in the EU, if we are not then they may as well manufacture at home, or more likely, relocate to an EU country , why be in the UK?

JCB are a shining example of manufacturing success, and they of course are hardly likely to relocate under any circumstances, seeing as they already have a factory in Germany and are building more in India and Brazil.

I was a keen advocate of the Euro, I now share your feelings on the fact that we didn’t join, but I suspect we share the same opinion but for very different reasons!

Stendec5,

So, you are a right wing nut job? Good luck with the BNP or wherever you end up.

Jabba TG12,

Fair enough, I am not here to be liked or to like others, and I am not terribly concerned if I happen to rub you up the wrong way, sorry.

As to my defence expertise, well, I don’t really have any. I flew the F4 for two tours in a very different world a long long time ago, but got out prematurely as I wanted to do other things.

As to my expertise in acting FOR the defence, then there I will have to disagree.

Bastardeux,

I clearly do NOT have a concept of how it works, other than chatting to some of the senior folk involved, both in and out of uniform, but as I alluded to in the para above, my involvement in all this ceased a long, long time ago.

Finningley Boy,

Totals of military kit can be rather pointlessly misleading (particularly if sourced from the Daily Fail!), so what if Switzerland has 380 tanks to our 227? Do they have nuclear powered hunter killer submarines, Strategic nuclear missiles? Do they have the whole myriad of military capabilities that the UK seems to think it needs to keep up. Germany is going down to 225 tanks, Holland has none at all now, so what?


dervish,

In hard cash terms the UK is the 4th largest military spender in the world, even without counting the billions spent from the reserve on Iraq and Afghanistan that do not come from the defence budget.
What that buys us is rather down to the head sheds and top brass who decide such things, I suppose I just react to posts and throw away comments that infer that we spend nothing on the military, which is simply rubbish.

[vascodegama]

I thought that Saudi Arabia had overtaken us in defence expenditure. In any event the defence budget is not there to subsidize an inefficient industry. How many major projects have been on budget and time in say the last 40 years? Ac wise I can only think of one and even then the MOD PE or whatever they were called tried their best to screw it up.

[Bastardeux]

Holland has none at all now, so what?

I would think armoured infantry would have some very choice words to say, if you said that their faces! It is all based on a presumption that the days of state-on-state warfare are gone, or at the very least, the days of sophisticated state vs sophisticated state warfare are gone; a presumption that you only have to look to Ukraine or the Senkaku Islands, to realise is utter bollox.

What happens if a proxy war breaks out between Nato and a Russian or Chinese sponsored state with all the latest mobile SAMs? Suddenly, the Apache has its limitations and there is a distinct lack of heavy armour in the Dutch AO...even I am willing to admit that the infallible doctrine of air power has its limitations, especially when the jets providing close air support are so expensive and so few!

[Stendec5]

prOOne

Cheap shots = lost argument. Nuff said.

[pr00ne]

Bastardeux,

I wasn’t intending to question the retention of 227 Challenger2 Main Battle Tanks, merely questioning the point of a Daily Mail list of who has how many tanks.
Your points about sophisticated state on sophisticated state warfare are I suppose precisely why the UK has retained three full up Armoured Brigades in the Army2020 structure. The days of such warfare, if not exactly over, are going to be exceedingly rare, and these ‘proxy wars’ of yours will be almost as rare.

Nuclear armed states tend not to go to war with each other, and we are certainly not going to war with Russia over Crimea (again).

vascodegama,

You may well be right, it will be an ever changing league table after all.

I’m not sure that the defence budget DOES merely subsidize an inefficient industry. The UK has mainly American transport aircraft, German, Belgian and Italian small arms, Belgian and South African artillery ammunition, American AEW, ASTOR and RPAS, Swedish SHORAD radar, Anglo/French/Spanish Tanker Transports and future tactical transports, American multi engine trainers, German Primary Trainers etc etc etc.
And that inefficient industry also just happens to be the second largest exporter of defence equipment around the world, so they are doing something right!

Stendec5,

No, you are mixing up contempt and disregard with a lost argument.

[vascodegama]

prOOne

I never said merely-simply that we are often forced into procurement which is politically motivated and produces a less than perfect solution.

[pr00ne]

vascodegama,

A point with which I agree.

[Finningley Boy]

A question I've asked before, is the Nuclear deterrent still funded directly from the Treasury? The last time I asked this some pointed out that it doesn't matter, its all part of overall defence spending. But if funded directly through capital expenditure, then it is separate and apart from. But I wonder if that is still the case.

I heard on the news today that the Nato General Secretary has stated that our post-cold war relationship with Russia has altered.

FB:)

[Heathrow Harry]

it went back into the defence budget when the coalition came in I think

hard to argue it is CAPEX when they've been in service for 21 years...........

[Stendec5]

prOOne.

I am not mixing anything up. You have LOST the argument. Full stop.
Your feeling "contempt and disregard" (my my, you must be SO important) toward me is, though amusing, both welcome and reassuring. To know that I am at the very opposite end of the spectrum to a nauseating insect like you makes me happy indeed.
Don't bother to reply as I will no longer view any post with your stain on it.
Job done. I feel somehow cleaner already.
Ahh, Spring is in the air. Which is more than can be said for the once mighty RAF. Oops, there I go again...

[Roland Pulfrew]

Sorry for the further thread drift but:

pr00ne

As regards the EU, my point was that the majority of our rather successful car industry is here precisely because we are in the EU, if we are not then they may as well manufacture at home, or more likely, relocate to an EU country , why be in the UK?

Well apart from the costs of relocation I suppose. It also assumes that by leaving the EU we are also out of the EFTA; there is no reason to suggest that this would be the case. If the EU did force us out or imposed import tariffs on 'UK' goods going into the EU that is a dangerous game. The UK now exports a greater % of goods to the ROW over the EU (albeit only by a margin of 4%) and as EU has a circa £5 billion trade surplus with the UK then just why would they risk damaging that benefit when they are trying to pull their economies out of recession?

I guess no-one really knows what will happen, least of all the politicians (hence Cleggy's scare tactics last week), but as one of the 10 largest economies in the world I think we should have the confidence our entrepreneurs, our engineers, our businessmen and above all else ourselves and just leave the EU (and the EHCR). Lots of smaller countries seem to cope well enough without the straight-jacket of the EU.