SDSR 15

[Sun Who]

So, as 2015 approaches and the associated SDSR draws near, I thought it might be worth starting a dedicated thread, to support discussion and debate.

To get things rolling, and to allow for comparison, here (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62485/Factsheet3-Summary-Key-SDSR-Changes.pdf) is a summary of the main changes arising from SDSR 10.

Personally, I'd like to see SDSR15 be a properly strategic review, that looks at the threat before the cost - and then adjusts to ensure affordability (rather than the other way around) and I'd like to see it finish the business it started in 2010, so far as cross-departmental capabilities and responsibilities are concerned.

Sun.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

SDSR 2010, the currently active document, has already been archived off the gov.uk website. It can be found here.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121015000000/http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf

Our Armed Forces – admired across the world – have been overstretched, deployed too often without
appropriate planning, with the wrong equipment, in the wrong numbers and without a clear strategy.
From the foreword, signed by the PM/DPM.

Does the document then list the threats to the UK's interests?
No
On what basis can a clear strategy therefore be formed?
It can't.
And how could Ministers do this when, by their own admission..
Ministers 'didn't know Tornado from torpedo' over Afghan strategy - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/11297058/Ministers-didnt-know-Tornado-from-torpedo-over-Afghan-strategy.html)

..and how well have the objectives been met anyway?
They haven't.

It's a cost-cutting exercise, and not a good one at that.

[MaroonMan4]

Sorry SW,

I beg to differ.

We all know that the next 5 years is going to see the HM Treasury squeeze the MoD budgets beyond anything we have experienced thus far since the recession. Afghan has managed to be an artificial funding ring fence where we have managed to keep our military (less so the Fisheads) on a trained and operational footing.

The MoD has been able to provide HM Govt and the nation with flexibility/contingency by using those very same highly trained, well equipped and experienced personnel to deliver small bespoke 'shows of force' and support to the FCO/NGO (everything from small exercises in Poland/Estonia, assisting Air Campaign against IS to Ebola and Sierra Leone and helping with flood defences in support of the Environment Agency).

But Afghan is now a distant memory for both politicians and many of the public. There is no requirement to spend money on training many personnel to a high standard (as per the Afghan tour cycles). Those that did benefit from this training and the corporate memory of both technical, kinetic and yet simple war fighting operations are leaving in large numbers across all 3 Services of all branches and trades.

It appears that when talking about 'hard choices ahead' then many of the political elite/'leaders' either are taking the world's developing strategic geopolitical situation on risk, or recognise that they can only do small token operations on the world stage (therefore reducing any political leverage that may come with such a token force) or are ignoring the advice from CDS/PUS and independent think tanks like RUSI.

Therefore in answer to your question I personally believe that ahead of the next SDSR the next Chancellor of the Exchequer and HMT should provide the MoD with its 5 year budget, with SDSR providing and prioritising the Defence Roles it requires and then the MoD review and then tell the Government of the day what they will get for the budget that they have allocated.

If that means 'capability holidays' (rubbish term) or moth balling/suspended animation/long term storage of ships, aircraft, and infantry battalions then so be it.

Having a fantasy SDSR 15 that talks the talk about what the real threats are to our nation etc, that does not have the resourcing (notably finance, but also the right quality and experience of people) will only result in either increased overall financial cost, political risk in not being able to deliver and possibly worse of costing more lives.

I personally get the feeling that the politicians strategic vision is should the requirement arise for a strong, well equipped Armed Forces (Cold War really does return, or IS really does need sorting out or AQAP require military action or a different posture than our current token efforts, then the HMT will throw money at the problem (as per HERRICK after the first few tours didn't go to plan).

If any future SDSR is not funded or resourced it quickly becomes irrelevant and everyone is forced to make it up as they go along, fire fighting and reverting to the use of the term of 'best effort' which has seen us through the last 13 years.

[Sun Who]

MM4,

I find nothing to disagree with in what you say and I might not have articulated myself very well, as I think we're essentially saying the same thing.

My aspiration for SDSR goes like this:

1. Decide upon and define the threat.
2. Decide upon and define the necessary stance to mitigate that threat.
3. Cost it.
4. Adjust according to budget.

Unaffordable capability is not capability.

Point 4 involves describing and then understanding and accepting, any 'capability gaps' (we both agree that's a crap term) that result.

Sun.

[Willard Whyte]

I can see a moratorium on all equipment that has not yet been ordered, an (even) earlier end to the C-130J, further delays to the Astute, and early retirement of the 4 remaining Trafalgar, class SSNs, probable dithering over a Trident replacement - or cancellation if there's a lib-lab-snp coalition, earlier retirement of T1 Typhoons and GR4 Tornados. Wouldn't put too much cash on Sentinel seeing out the decade either. Do we need ~400 tanks? Probably, but that won't mean we keep them. Oh, also: niggardly pay rises, further pension 'restructuring'.

That's just off the top of my head anyway.

Lots of capability holidays to come. No redundancies though, people are too busy PVRing. The Argies, amongst others, will be laughing their collective cocks off.

[LowObservable]

The process will look like this:

1 - Identify threats to national interests (which include threats to international order)
2 - Define and cost responses to these threats that will preferably deter them and if necessary defeat them
3 - Prioritize threats
4 - From bottom to top, either eliminate or scale the responses until the budget target is met

Two overarching problems, not exclusive to UK:

1 - Limits on what can be done to some costs, such as personnel and overhead, which drive the cutting burden disproportionately to modernization (R&D/procurement)
2 - A very small number of very expensive programs (nukes, carriers) that are hard to cancel, limit or stretch (because the unit costs get even worse) but that mean that as the overall procurement budget goes down by X per cent, what is left for other needs goes down by XY per cent, because all the bills have to be paid by smaller programs.

GLWT...

[Lima Juliet]

SDSR10:
• two new carriers, with one equipped to allow full interoperability with key allies; Rollover to SDSR15
• introduction of the more capable carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter instead of the vertical take off variant; Denied by contractor building the ships who was making the ships and had a far bigger stake/interest in the less capable VSTOL version
• six state of the art Type 45 air defence destroyers; Done - and good they are but not enough of them
• seven of the most advanced Astute-class hunter-killer submarines in the world; Delayed but some in service within SDSR10 timeframe
• replacing Type 23 frigates with Type 26 frigates and reducing the total number of frigates and amphibious ships; Delayed
• restructuring amphibious shipping to enable the landing of a Commando Group (up to 1,800 personnel); Done
• five Multi-Role Brigades with a range of capabilities to operate across the variety of possible future conflicts; Done
• a significant increase in Special Forces enabling manpower (medical, signals, logisticians); Done
• reducing the Army’s non deployable regional administrative structures and rationalising deployable HQs; Done
• 12 new Chinook heavy lift helicopters; In delivery
• 14 A330 strategic tanker and transport aircraft to replace the ageing VC10 and TriStar fleets; In delivery
• the withdrawal of Nimrod MRA4 and the Harrier; Done
• introduction of 22 A400M transport aircraft; In delivery
• rationalising the defence estate through the sale of surplus land and running cost reductions; Massive screw ups by DIO mean that there is still large swathes of out of use estate not sold off
• accelerating the re-basing of our forces from Germany; Well in progress
• reducing the civilian workforce by around 25,000 and military personnel by around 17,000 by 2015. Pretty much complete

So for SDSR15, I predict:
More blah about the new flat-tops?
More blah about the A330s/A400Ms?
More blah about SCAVENGER - which is Reaper coming into core?
Loss of Sentinel?
Announcement on Future Combat Air System? (Taranis)
Shake up of DIO and actually getting some receipts in for some of the land? This will include the basing and airfields study?
More on the NEM and the use of Reserves? (Cost cutting in other words!)
Rationalisation of training? (single gateways for all 3 services?)
Some blah on MFTS?
Loss of some tanks?
Setting out a pathway for the new deterent? (Sea, land or airborne?)
More Army manpower reductions?

There you go, my two-penneth

LJ

[Wrathmonk]

4. Adjust according to budget.

4 - From bottom to top, either eliminate or scale the responses until the budget target is met

Both of these could be reworded as "Take risk to meet budget" as that is what will happen (as it does today). Whether the 'risk mitigation' is worth the paper it's written on is another thing (mitigation such as rely on allies to provide suitable assets or capability / lead time will be sufficient to retrain forces / sufficient sea lift, and time, will be available to move equipment / 100% of reserves will be available for mobilisation are words, nothing else). Sadly, there are plenty of VSOs who are prepared to sign up to these risks (and plenty of cabinet ministers who are happy to stick their heads in the sand [they won't take responsibility, clearly]) in order to carry on up the slippery pole safe in the knowledge that the effects of their decisions will not be fully felt "on their watch".

[jayc530]

The Department should reduce the size of the senior cadre of Defence
and the management levels below it. To enable this, the Department
should review all non-front line military posts from OF5 (Captain / Colonel
/ Group Captain) and civilian posts from Band B (Grade 7), to determine
the need for the post, whether it needs to be civilian or military, and
optimum management structures.

Clearly not happened as Air Cdre and above is currently 115% over manned.

[Wrathmonk]

Clearly not happened

Best you take it up with Lord Levene and his staff - according to his Annual Reviews, and the progress made against defence reform recommendations, he has reported the following against the one you quote (Recommendation 11a):

In 2012 (First Review)

A Liability Review of all civilian and non-front line military posts from 0F5 up to 2* has been undertaken. The scope of this work has
increased and completion is now expected by end 2012.

In 2013 (Second Review)

The Liability Review is complete. Numbers of senior posts will continue to be monitored by DS Sec and HRD and implemented through
Command Plans.

In 2014 (Third Review)

Complete: Military starred strength has reduced from 490 in 2010 to 448 by Oct 2014. Alongside this the equivalent SCS strength has reduced from to 309 in 2010 to 271 by Oct 2014.

Detail can be found here (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-reform-an-independent-report-into-the-structure-and-management-of-the-ministry-of-defence--2).

Whilst it may be that one particular rank in one Service currently is 'over manned' this may be because 1* RAF officers are filling more than their "fair share" of joint appointments.

But don't let facts get in your way.....

[alfred_the_great]

Or the population is such that 1 or 2 extra officers creates a 'large' % increase.

[Whenurhappy]

The problem is, and will always be, that any 'strategic' analysis will be coloured by what we've got in the toy box and what on order from Toys r Us (BAES), and (of course) how much pocket money we can beg and take in advance.

Accordingly, responses to security risks (incipient problems) and threats (emergent problems) will be equipment-focussed, rather than effects-based.

One example I recall from a few years ago in MB, was when we entered in to long discussions with the Army over the introduction of loitering munitions. They were convinced that the only answer to attacking time-sensitive and dynamic targets was loitering munitions (kamikaze UAVs, for ease of explanation). They just didn't get the concept of joint fires, ie the kinetic effect is what is desired, not necessarily the means of delivery.

Of late I have been involved in guiding the drafting defence strategies for an emerging economy, and they follow the cascade method from Grand Strategy, National Security Strategy, National Military (defence) strategy and so forth. It works; but they are also prepared to fund the resultant programmes.

[jayc530]

It's nearer 50 than one or two. The point being they are over manned as are all ranks at Sqn Ldr and above.

[alfred_the_great]

Of course, the fact that Strategy exists

to derive from the [policy] aim a series of military objectives to be achieved: to assess these objectives as to the military requirements they create, and the pre-conditions which the achievement of each is likely to necessitate: to measure available and potential resources against the requirements and to chart from this process a coherent pattern of priorities and a rational course of action.

Alanbrooke, quoted in British Defence Doctrine

Means that all those who whine on about financial constraints and the current EP simply don't get it.

[Selatar]

Interesting to note that while overall numbers have dropped by over 20% in the last 3 years, it seems starred posts have fallen by just over 8% if the 2014 figures above are right. Not saying that's wrong but it paints a picture.

[Lima Juliet]

Oh JayC change the record old stick, will you? We've already covered this before:

Jayc

Quote:
Air Cdre and above over manned by 115%. All ranks from Sqn Ldr are also overmanned.

Stats can be quite misleading. There are something like 75 Air Commodores in the RAF (for comparison it is the same in the RN and there are about 160 Brigadiers in the Army). Now your 115% is 11 extra Air Commodores over the 75, making a total of 86. When you take into account the size of our manpower that is 0.03% of our manpower that we are overborne by (an example of how stats can mislead!).

However, you need to consider 2 things:

1. Air Commodores are only as good as their next posting. If they do not get a posting on the Air Rank Appointments List (ARAL) then they get a 'blue letter' telling them they are to retire - directed retirement. So getting rid of 11 is quite easy when you no longer need them!

2. We probably need these extras for now with 1-star jobs in the Middle East (ISAF HQs, EAWs, etc...). Don't forget, for every out of area post you need 2x Air Commodores - 1 on work up and 1 doing the job.

So all in all, old fruit, I don't see the 'shock and horror' of 11 extra Air Commodores that can be switched off in an instant (well about 12 months when you bring in their resettlement).

LJ

You obviously have a serious chip on both shoulders on this one, what do you propose? SACs/Cpls/Sgts/WOs in every defence attache or NATO post? I can tell you that without at least rank equivalency in these kinds of posts then the UK's voice will be lost. The same goes for joint appointments and then the singular Service loses out as well. :ugh:

LJ

PS When has "11" been "nearer 50"?

[Willard Whyte]

No point in having a voice when you carry a short stick that can't be in two places at once.

[Lima Juliet]

WW - true, but even our short stick is a lot bigger than the majority of our Allies (just!)

LJ

[tucumseh]

Is an SDSR in election year good or bad? To me, it makes for hasty decisions. None of the parties have published their defence policies to the level of detail required. Our planners in MoD main building will be spread very thin trying to cover all bases, which will suit the politicians. The answers to "what if?" questions may not be well thought out.

In addition to the above list, BOWMAN is being replaced. It is only 11 years since the contract was let, but it bought a lot of kit that had already been obsolescent for over 10 years, almost immediately scrapping hundreds of millions worth. It blew over £2Bn and didn't come close to delivering what was required, and never will. Volume programmes such as this, as opposed to ships or aircraft with a higher unit cost, tend to be ignored. BOWMAN is a double whammy because the requirement is largely driven by the US, and the need for interoperability. If that ever became policy, then we'd really be in the clag!

[Lima Juliet]

Ah, BOWMAN... I agree, what a POS. So much so that we had to procure these to be able to do the things we needed to do:

http://www.satnews.com/images_upload/666243997/harrisanprc117g.jpg

I wouldn't mind if our industry was incapable of producing a Harris 117 equivalent, but there is still something really screwed up with our procurment system, that we can't. I often think it is down to the way we muddle in the R&D phase and don't let industry get investors to produce what they think we might need.

LJ

[Sun Who]

Tuc,

Good point. I think there is a serious possibility that SDSR will be delayed until 2016. I think that would be a good thing.

Sun.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Its nearer 50 than 2


And that is the problem with Stats - they are just a snapshot in time; a day later and the picture might change dramatically. So (as has been pointed out before but you have ignored) I know of 6 air cdres that have PVRd in the last couple of months; I've also heard of a couple of brigadiers who have done the same. So a snapshot today might not be vastly different but it will change in pretty short order!

Unfortunately, several of those who have PVRd are our brightest and best; which doesn't necessarily bode well for the rest of us and the future!! :ugh:

I also agree that SDSR should be job for 15/16; with the actual decisions and announcement into 2016. Let's face it SDSR 10 was rushed and certainly not a true Strategic review!

[Selatar]

My understanding is if you delay into 16 that means the CSR from HMT has already allocated the money for the next 3 years at least. Therefore you can review all you want but the budget is set and fixed making SDSR 16 an internal resource shuffle/cut rather like the current ABC rounds (annual planning round in new speak). If you allign with the CSR in 15 you can at least argue your point for capability based on some proper assessment.

[tucumseh]

Leon

It's the timing that upsets the top shop.

The BOWMAN HF replacement was specified, trialled, delivered and in theatre, all in the space of 2 months in 2003 - and not under a UOR. UORs took far longer!

A month later, the BOWMAN main contract was let to buy its predecessor. This was so embarrassing, the BOWMAN IPT lobbied for the replacement programme to be cancelled, but the PM told them to push off, the replacement would prevent losses whereas in many ways BOWMAN was going to contribute to losses (and so it proved). But they were partially successful as the replacement, at first scheduled for 3 "special" users, wasn't pulled through for everyone else. But BOWMAN did eventually make a supplementary buy outwith their main contract for proper antennae, which had been left out of the contract. Radios. No antennae. You couldn't make it up. Mind you, first things first. The batteries didn't work either, as well as costing 3 times as much as those from other suppliers, and being to a 10 years out of date specification (and not built to that spec). And don't mention battery chargers. Or exploding batteries. Or the total recall and destruction order, that left troops short of power for around 2 years. As the General Officer Commanding said in a press briefing in January 2006, the BOWMAN HF replacement was "the comms system of choice in AFG". What an indictment.

Point being, we need to avoid waste like this before deciding on cuts, otherwise the cuts are from an uninformed and false baseline.

[Lima Juliet]

Tuc

Yet again I agree. The waste in our procurement is a disgrace to the hard working taxpayers that pay for the capability. The sooner we start actual 'smart' procurement, like we have with Reaper, Harris 117, Mastiff, Ridgback, Shadow, SigSauer P226, Sharpshooter, M6-895 mortar and others, then the better - all of these have been brought into service at significantly lower cost than the normal method of procurement. The guys at General Atomic were agog when I told them how much we paid contractors to develop something like Watchkeeper or Phoenix - originally we went to look at Predator and then the company asked if we might like to see their next generation of un-manned armed-ISR; this was Reaper, and it was developed from the company's own investment. Furthermore, look at the Jaguar aircraft when the ability to bolt on bits from off the shelf and trial them, came in? The step-change in capability versus amount spent was exceptional.

I agree that procurement is where the majority of savings should come from and the other part from the mismanagement of infrastructure by DIO and their rip-off Regional Prime Contractors who add a "40% variance" to the price of the work before they even start! For example, some simple corrugated roof work was quoted by a local roofing contractor at £750+VAT (they were all HSE approved) and then the Regional Prime Contractor got the job at ~£2,200+VAT - how's that for value for money!!!

Makes me grumpy...:*

LJ

[vascodegama]

In the example above why not report the episode to the MOD fraud and abuse waste line?

[Lima Juliet]

Have you got a link - I'm pretty sure I have enough to employ someone investigating it for 12 months!

Sadly, as it is a 'closed shop' for Regional Prime Contractors and also those under the Catering Retail and Leisure (CRL) contract (that also charge silly prices for their services when an outside firm could do better) then it is unlikely to get a satisfactory conclusion for the taxpayer.

LJ :ok:

[vascodegama]

LJ Check PMs

[Bigbux]

Leon, never was a truer word said - there are more savings here than you would care to believe.

I agree that procurement is where the majority of savings should come from

The problem is, you have to do it properly if you want to make the savings. That means a proper/mature/stable specification, open and fair competition, and preventing interference from parties with vested interest during the procurement process.

Oh, and ditching the belief that appointing certain companies as "strategic resources" is the only way of achieving technology and capability transfer.

New Procurement Regs coming in April are going focus the MoD's mind on that one.

[Lima Juliet]

Vasco

Many thanks PM sent back. I also found thus amongst the FOI stuff - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/367144/FOI2014_05558_MOD_policy_about_bribery_or_financial_irregula rity.pdf

Sad thing is that all of the Regional Contractors are changing to a single source right now - Carillion (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/444bb632-130c-11e4-925a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3NPhIPg3x). So now it is just a "one horse race" and I cannot see how this can possibly offer value for money as there is no competition!

I am glad that the current apparent 'cowboy builders' have been shown the door though!

LJ

[Whenurhappy]

The construction industry was regarded as the most corrupt and organised-crime ridden sector in Britain, at least in the 1990s, when I spent time auditing. For example, on average 20% of goods ordered never arrived on site - being 'pilfered' along the way.

The scaffolding industry was particularly prone to OC activities; in another example in 1995 a contractor working at RAF Lyneham had a number of his vehicles fire-bombed in Bristol and thus withdrew from the contract, requiring 'single-tender action' to permit work to continue - and to allow a much larger - and more shadier - firm to take over. That sort of behaviour was particularly prevalent.

[LowObservable]

Hence the famed 1970s graffiti

IN COMMUNIST CHINA WORKERS TAKE THE LEAD!

Beneath which, in a different hand

IN SOCIALIST BRITAIN THE B***ERS NICK THE COPPER PIPING

[Bigbux]

Leon

Sad thing is that all of the Regional Contractors are changing to a single source right now - Carillion (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/444bb632-1...#axzz3NPhIPg3x). So now it is just a "one horse race" and I cannot see how this can possibly offer value for money as there is no competition!

Surely for a contract of this size there is a legal requirement to compete under the Public Contracts/Utilities Regulations 2006? - unless Carillon are being awarded work under a framework, in which case the obligation to run a mini-competition would lie with the Authority.

The FM/Building world is quite competitive - it would be interesting to know how Carillion's services are being procured.

[Lima Juliet]

Here is another link better than the FT one: Carillion plc - Carillion joint venture signs contracts with the Defence Infrastructure Organisation for a further three Next Generation Estate Contracts (http://www.carillionplc.com/news-media/news/2014/carillion-joint-venture-signs-contracts-with-the-defence-infrastructure-organisation-for-a-further-three-next-generation-estate-contracts.aspx#.VKVuIYHfWrU)

[Bigbux]

Whenurhappy

(sorry - got carried away with this one)

Corruption perception indexes - Global:

2014 Corruption Perceptions Index -- Results (http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results)

Within the UK there was a scale for each industry - usually Oil & Gas, Building, Defence took 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

Personally I can't see how Health did not make it into the top running as it is still common to see fund controllers awarding themselves contracts.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c84ead24-ce7e-11e1-bc0c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3NaHwGJjI

Uk Bribery Act 2010 puts an obligation on organisations to prevent fraud and replaces previous legislation on corruption.

There is still a duty to report and the presumption of innocence does not automatically apply. (If you don't report you are considered to be part of the scam).

Fun to view webpage at the Serious Fraud Office

Latest press releases | Press room | SFO - Serious Fraud Office (http://www.sfo.gov.uk/press-room/latest-press-releases.aspx)

[Sun Who]

Bigbux,

The reason health didn't make it onto the list, is because it's a corruption perception index, not an index of actual corruption, and health is not perceived to be corrupt.

Sun.

[teeteringhead]

Whoever, or whatever coalition or mix we finish up with in May, they will have a fiscal mountain to climb.
I think there is a serious possibility that SDSR will be delayed until 2016. You should be so lucky!!

I think it vanishingly unlikley that Defence, with such fragile public support post Afghan, will not be an early major target - and that doesn't mean waiting 'til 2016 unfortunately.

All the Pollies at the moment are fighting shy of addressing or even acknowledging the extent of the Defecit and its seriousness.

Listen in Best Beloveds, because - without being patronising - many (most?) seem not to know the difference between Debt and Defecit.

Debt is what you owe, Defecit is all about cashflow - and we've all been there (I certainly have!) Say you earn £3k a month, but you're spending £3.5k. Whatever you actually owe, that £500 is your defecit. And we get over it temporarily with the help of the plastic or a nice Bank Manager. (and we haven't touched the Debt)

Temporarily is the key - it cannot be sustained. At present, even in so-called "austerity" and with supposed actual and planned "cuts", UK plc is spending about £3k per second more than its income, or if you'd prefer, £10.9M per hour, £250M+ per day. Between now and 7th May that's nearly £33Bn of just defecit, not a penny reducing the debt, not a penny contributing to servicing that increasing debt.:eek:

One is not optimistic against that background, at how successfully MoD will be able to compete against NHS and DHSS. :{

And cynical moi still doesn't expect any Pollie to come clean on the Defecit until 8th May when - foolishly - someone will have a guaranteed 5-year tenure .......

[MaroonMan4]

Ok, now my headache has subsided can I just confirm that so far on this thread that we serving, ex-serving and interested thread posters acknowledge that:

1. The pseudo ring fencing of Defence and the ability to deliver operationally trained, equipped and experienced forces (less so Navy) due to Afghan will stop abruptly in 2015.
2. The Defence budget will be cut by a significant amount over the next 4 years.
3. Any funding savings requested by HMT will be delivered by the MoD via savings found in DE&S and DIO, in what appears to be the way that procurement and Defence contracts are awarded.

Have I got that right, or is last night's ale blurring my naive judgement?

Just one more question if you don't mind, is there a military definition for the term strategic, specifically in the timeframe that any SDSR should review - 5, 10, 15 years? Is there a set time metric, or is it decided upon every SDSR or by its very (political) timing it only looks out to the next 5 years acknowledging that a change of Government of the day will invariably result in a change to Defence?

[Heathrow Harry]

Itr wouldn't be so bad if the politicians said "we'll look at the NHS/SocSec/Defence budget after the election" but they will gave ANY promises they htink will get the votes - and that means they will tie themselves absolutely to the NHS etc


They don't leave themslves any wriggle room and Defence will be massacred again

Unless President Putin goes totally off the rails it all looks bad from here on in

[Sun Who]

May I recommend this as an excellent articulation of some of the underlying challenge associated with SDSR

Britainin a Perilous World: The defence and Security Review We Need

It's a bit of a polemic but makes some very insightful points. In particular; Defence has no agreed definition for 'strategic' but there are several acknowledged definitions that are widely understood by the military. Further, that whilst Defence has a shared language for the creation of both policy and doctrine, Westminster, and more importantly, politicians, do not.
The consequence of this, is that outlining defence and security needs in a manner that will 'hit home' with decision makers, is very, very hard.

Sun.

[alfred_the_great]

It might "hit home", but at the end of the day, decisions like this are made (generally) on a personal level, with relationships to the fore. If CMD and Gideon (or Gromit and Ball-ache) don't like the people bringing the argument, or need to balance some internal politics* in order to achieve a more important task, then it doesn't matter if some poor bugger has crafted a beautiful piece of staff work on OPVs or the need for Strategic Airlift - it will all go by the wayside. Rant and wail all you like, but it's the truth, and we shouldn't have it any other way. And that's likely the reason that UKSF, CASD and GCHQ/SIS/BSS will nearly always win any funding battle.

*Or coalition politics!

[5 Forward 6 Back]

So from an aviation perspective, what do we think is actually likely to be announced? Based on the HERRICK drawdown but balanced against a planned 3 years plus on SHADER, what would you do as a politician to balance the books?

I'd have bet a lot on an accelerated GR4 OSD, but considering the SHADER burden, is that likely? Or can Reaper take on an increased ISR/CAS/AI role there to compensate? Does the Typhoon Force have enough capacity to mount an enduring AI det to Aki?

What about airlift; if we're staging out of Aki for the next 3 years, and we're committed to A400M, do we need to maintain the same amount of C17s and C130s? With no land forces committed to SHADER will we see cuts in helicopters?

Will we see Sentinel and Shadow persist? Will we see the rumoured P8 buy; is that more likely than most with a refocus to the UK over Afghanistan?

Mostly Devil's Advocate stuff; we all know what we'd want, and we all know we're probably facing more demands and more requirements than we'll get people and equipment to service. Against a background of low public support and awareness post-Afghanistan, and a likely lack of support for deeper engagement in Iraq, what stuff is safe?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Even if the politicians were honest and knew what they were doing.......

...I'll repeat what I've said before - There Is No Money.

Treasury sees £25billion shortfall from income tax receipts amid low wage growth | This is Money (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2795899/treasury-sees-25billion-shortfall-income-tax-receipts-amid-low-wage-growth.html)

The Treasury is out £108 bn, £32 bn of which is lower Income Tax and NI due to low wages, which is the same size as the entire Defence budget.

..and not one penny of the impact of lower wages on Government receipts was factored into any of the studies that showed that migrant labour is a Good Thing.

[Lima Juliet]

F3WMB

I agree that we are unlikely to see any new capabilities. As I have stated before, the savings lie in Infrastructure and Procurement this time around. Also, we need to stop this rationalisation process when it costs so much - moving trg to places like Worthy Down (£250M - BBC News - Worthy Down: Work begins on military training college (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-29846317)) and Lyneham (£121M for the first stage - Work starts on new £121million Defence training college | netMAGmedia Ltd (http://www.buildingconstructiondesign.co.uk/news/work-starts-on-new-121million-defence-training-college/)) for "hundreds of millions" at a time to sell the old sites for "tens of millions" (as an example former RAF Bicester and its hangars sold for just £3.25M - http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10459977._Why_I_bought_RAF_Bicester_for___3_25m_/) is just plain daft. I read that there is a study for a 'single gateway' to the RAF by moving recruit training from Honington and Halton to Cranwell - if there is any 'delta' between the cost of doing this versus the receipts for the old real estate then surely this shouldn't happen in times of austerity? There will be no receipts for Honington (unless they pull the plug on the RAF Regt in SDSR and Halton is probably worth, as building land, about 1/4 of the build cost at Cranwell if the Worthy Down/Lyenham costs are anything to go by).

'Mend and make-do' is what most do when the coffers are running low!

LJ

[Bigbux]

That's the way to build soldiers.. beast the gunners up and down those Lincolnshire hills.:ooh:

[Lima Juliet]

Waste, waste, waste Warships, jets and tanks worth £2.5 billion scrapped in Whitehall cost-cutting drive - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11319571/Warships-jets-and-tanks-worth-2.5-billion-scrapped-in-Whitehall-cost-cutting-drive.html)

The Strategic Defence Review in 2010 outlined cuts of eight per cent, or £4.7 billion, from the Ministry of Defence budget. The savings were to be achieved by cutting around 42,000 jobs and getting rid of aircraft, ships and vehicles.

Selling the entire fleet of Britain’s 74 Harrier jump jets in 2011, seven years earlier than planned, was intended to save £2.8 billion...

...Ending the Harrier programme is recorded as a in the MoD accounts as a loss of £1.29 billion. The fleet was bought by the United States Navy, which still uses the planes, for around £100 million. US defence chiefs suggested they had secured a bargain given the good condition of the jets, saying the purchase was “like buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it.”

Defence Ministers justified their decisions to cut the Army and sell-off prized assets like the Harrier jets by saying it would save money. In fact it’s saved nowhere near what they thought, and in some cases it has even resulted in a loss.”

The Ministry of Defence stressed that the figures for scrapped equipment reflected a write-down in assets for accounting purposes, and not fresh cash payments.

A spokesman said: “These are routine financial reports and in no way has day-to-day defence spending been impacted or reduced. Because of the financial inheritance in 2010, defence had to take tough decisions in order to deliver a balanced budget. This meant retiring a number of capabilities and writing off their costs, which requires specific accountancy treatment.”

LJ :{

[Not_a_boffin]

Waste, waste, waste

or b0ll0cks, b0llocks, b0llocks.

As noted by Finnpog in this thread http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/553882-somewhat-misleading-headline-telegraph.html.

Someone at the Tellywelly (and possibly the NAO, which is worrying) is conflating "saving" with the "value" of asset write-offs.

Losing those assets (and the people that made them useful) was painful and ideally would never have happened, but when you've got no money, you've got no money. If as a nation we want to live beyond our means in terms of social spending, then everything else will suffer. Full stop, the end. Until that particular nettle is grasped, we're still going to hell in a handcart etc etc.

[VinRouge]

Is this the result of resource account budgeting?

[Roland Pulfrew]

I read that there is a study for a 'single gateway' to the RAF by moving recruit training from Honington and Halton to Cranwell - if there is any 'delta' between the cost of doing this versus the receipts for the old real estate then surely this shouldn't happen

LJ - it's not just a study; I've heard CAS say that is what he would like. It's utterly beyond comprehension and he said something along the lines "so if anyone has a spare £150 (or was it £250) million for me to do it......."

There is no way that they can sell off all of the Halton site for building and thus money, which may, or MAY NOT be retained inside the Defence budget. All of the MQs will still be required to feed the HQ at HW. The sports facilities might be sold, but who to and why? The House might be sold to a hotel chain (what a waste) but given the massive objections from the locals and the local councils to the redevelopment of the old Halton Hospital site I cannot see planning permission for lots of new houses (except, of course, the MoD will be being sold a line by the snake oil salesmen from the big house building firms) particularly as the infrastructure in that part of the Chilterns Area of Oustanding Natural Beauty is buggered! Anyone who lives locally will tell you that the roads in the rush hours are virtually gridlocked now let alone with thousands of new houses added!

[andrewn]

A difficult one this. I think our armed forces have already fallen below "critical mass", with the RAF lacking the resource to maintain a broad spectrum of capabilities.

My first priority for SDSR15 would be PEOPLE, reversing the personnel cuts of SDSR10 across the RAF/RN as a minimum.
After that I'd focus on identifying the prime real estate we wish to keep (MOBs) and investing sensibly to ensure they are fit for purpose for the long term - so no more vanity projects just a rolling refresh based on a stable annual CAPEX spend for the 5yrs. Regrettably I'd probably dispose of Scampton immediately (REDS to Leeming or Linton).
Then I'd look at procurement guidelines and mandate currently available Off The Shelf solutions for all new purchases

Specifically I'd order up to 100 F-35As spread over a 5-10yr period and I'd order a handful more Typhoons (12-24) - admittedly in part to keep production running a little longer. As a part trade off I'd dispose of the Tranche 1 jets from 2018.
I'd go ahead with a new MPA, between 6-8 P-8s or refurb P-3s with up to date sensors/systems - this would be a cost based decision, so If P-3 is proven to be half the cost at 80% of the capability then I'd go for it.
For stuff currently in service I accept that Tornado should go around the end of this decade, assuming Typhoon/F35 are available and mature. I'd review Hawk T1 OSD and either extend via a RTW refurb programme or order a further 24 new 100 series to enter service from the end of the decade.
I'd review E-3D OSD and consider options to save money - from what must be a relatively expensive platform. Possibly retiring our own "fleet within a fleet" around the end of the decade and becoming a partner in the core NATO fleet
I'd call in ASCENT/MFTS for "review" - of course we need a high quality training system that maximises efficiencies but I'm not convinced this creeping civilianisation is the way forward
I'd remove a good handful of Chinooks from service (12-15), and look to rationalise basing of the RW fleet - look at all options including closing Odiham/Benson and centralising on Boscombe Down!


Should keep everyone busy for the next 5yrs or so

[The B Word]

Roland

Someone needs to tell CAS that moving all phase 1 trg to RAF Cranwell does not make sense at present due to the financial situation:

1. A couple of years back Halton Hoise was valied at around £1.5M as it needs to have so much work done to bring it up to 5-star spa hotel standards. Also, the Recruit Trg Sqn (ex Apprentice Wg) buildings are Grade II listed and so they cannot be demolished. The rest of the site was valued at c£100M.

2. Aylesbury Vale and Chiltern District Council cannot supoort the development of the site for at least 10 years as they already have a massive building prgram underway and they have a further 2 planned - the hospital at Stoke Mandeville is over-run, the local schools are rammed (despite building a new Academy on the North side of Aylesbury) and as you quite correctly observe the roads are also jammed for the significant periods of the day.

3. HQ Air would still need access to the Married Quarters - RAF Halton has so few permanent staff (less than 500 and some of those are FTRS without entitlement).

4. RAF Cranwell is also short of Married Quarters due to the rest of Lincolnshire being similarly short - therefore, either expensive rentals would be needed or new build Married Quarters. There are also shortages in schools, hospital places and GPs in North Kesteven - this plan is unlikely to be in the local Council's 10 year plan as well.

5. The so-called 'synergies' with Initial Officer Trg and Basic Recruit Trg are unlikely to be found - you can't mix and match! So although you might be able to share some of the admin burden (maybe with a 10-20% reduction in total staff doing admin), the other parts of initial trg needs the same individuals. There is so very little fat to trim from something already as lean as it can get without breaking duty of care or health and safety legislation.

6. There would have to be a significant amount of infra built at Cranwell. Compared to the ~150 officers going through Cranwell each year there are ~2,000 recruits - at any one time there are ~5-600 recruits on site. There would need to be at least 4 new SLAM blocks to house the staff, there would need to be new barrack blocks for the students. There would need to be a new build of trg facilities and also a parade square (unless CHOM is to be shared? But there is a 'passing out' parade every 2 weeks that would severely disrupt CHOM's daily activity) as the Parade Square outside No 1 Mess is too small. I understand the cost of all of the build required is estimated to be between £400,000-500,000! :eek: So I expect you heard "a spare £250M to do it" from CAS when you consider the recipts he would generate from the sell-off.

7. Then there is a the issue of the location. Most RAF Recruits do not have cars and so rely on public transport. At Halton, with Tring/Aylesbury/Wemdover stations and an ambundence of buses, it is very good; at Cranwell it is just awful. Also, 500 recruits descending on downtown Sleaford is going to be 'interesting'!

8. Where are the ~15 other lodger units going to go? Who is going to pay for their move? For example the Specialist Trg Sqn at RAF Halton delivers heallth and safety trg to over 5,000 joint service personnel each year. If you want to do that elsewhere then you need a facility AND a serious amount accomodation - if you have to build it, it doesn't come cheap!

Someone needs to be fully frank with CAS in that this vision is just bonkers in our current climate of deficit. It will not save money, we will lose other capabilities to achieve its funding and also it will be unpopular. This is classic VSO 'good ideas club' that is surrounded by the sychphantic murmerings of staff officers recently graduated from Shrivenham Polytechnic. If it happens we will set ourselves up for more headlines of "waste" and "over-spending" in the national newspapers.

As LJ says, "mend and make do" is the only option for the foreseeable future.

The B Word

[The B Word]

Andrewn

I think Linton is up for disposal, but Reds at Leeming with 100 Sqn would make a lot of sense in my opinion. They would need to find a new R313 equivalent nearby.

There would also need to be a new home for 1ACC at RAF Scampton as well, though (RAF Scampton - 1 Air Control Centre (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafscampton/aboutus/1air_control_centre.cfm)). This would also cost a lot of cash unless you just shut the runway at Scampton, and then how much would that save?

Maybe not as clear cut as it first appears.

The B Word

[Toddington Ted]

"That's the way to build soldiers.. beast the gunners up and down those Lincolnshire hills."

I too thought that Bomber County was all flat fenland until I moved here in 2000. One of the steepest hills on the old A1 (Great North Road) is at Gonerby on the northern side of Grantham.

Post#51 is spot on "B Word". Having served at both CRN and Halton, I can concur with your observations. Halton House, in particular, is a real "white elephant" built on the orders of a confirmed pleasure-loving batchelor to be a fun palace (what's changed you may say?) and certainly not built to last, although the current owners have tried to keep it up together and its always good to "spot" it in Downton Abbey episodes etc.

Cranwell has very little accommodation for airmen recruits but when I left Trenchard Hall for the last time last month and took the chalice of redundancy, there seemed to be a lot of vacant space there - if you like a 1960s heat-losing pile designed by the late shady Mr Poulson that is!

[iRaven]

Toddington

As I understand it Trenchard Hall is condemed from use by new users - too much asbestos and its falling to bits! Therefore, no use for new people and let's face it they would be mobing from bad to worse!

iRaven

[andrewn]

Thanks B Word, well aware of the potential disposal of Linton, which was partly why I thought it may make a good home for the Reds, agree that airspace is an issue wherever a new location is.

Regards the FC stuff then pretty sure there were plans a few years back to vacate anyway and consolidate into either Boulmer or Coningsby?

None of these decisions are simple and all come with some cost and disruption, I guess the wider point i'm making is related to making best use of the available infrastructure and keeping dilapidated places like Scampton going just seems a poor use of taxpayers money.

[MaroonMan4]

Andrewn,

I was intending not to get into any debate on the detail of any future SDSR, but I will certainly agree with you that although DE&S/EP and DIO/Infra may be the panacea for what appears to be inevitable deep cuts, it is as you rightly point out the PEOPLE that require the greatest strategic review and rapid tactical implementation over the next 5 years.

If not you can have all the equipment in the world, but as both history and doctrine records that equipment alone does not make a war fighting force.
How an SDSR does put people as it's number two priority, second to saving money, is a question too great for this small brain.

Back into my comfort zone of RW, I would like to explore your rationale behind your comments below:


I'd call in ASCENT/MFTS for "review" - of course we need a high quality training system that maximises efficiencies but I'm not convinced this creeping civilianisation is the way forward
I'd remove a good handful of Chinooks from service (12-15), and look to rationalise basing of the RW fleet - look at all options including closing Odiham/Benson and centralising on Boscombe Down!

Agreed about MFTS, with as seen on previous threads all of the money already spent on the FJ system, and the DHFS contract being extended to compensate for the current MFTS RW programme delays.

So what is your strategic MFTS solution, that will either appeal (I.e. Gain agreement) to our Service chiefs, politicians, or financially - sadly as already established anything that has adding value or operational capability as its main tenet will not make first screening I fear.

As to your suggestion of removing a handful of wokkas, without appearing partisan.....why? Will our requirement for future tactical lift and air mobility reduce in the coming 5 years, or are we expecting our newly recruited Reservists to walk?

As to rationalisation, brilliant idea and there are 2 factors where I personally believe this has failed in previous studies (BELVEDERE and others), namely single Service protectionism (all those potential career pathways stopped in an instant) and the real costs of actually building new stuff (is there anywhere out there where 3 of our bases can merge and all our RW just walk on in cost neutral basis or with savings (and do not forget it is not purely aircraft space, but sims, MQs, accommodation, office space - even if economy of scale was achieved with Medical, MT, etc).

I look forward to your thoughts.

[kintyred]

Egdg,

MUSIC TO MY EARS! I watched the flying order book go from a concise, useable document to an unwieldy, contradictory, whimsical piece of nonsense. My target for SDSR would be regulations. Once the MOD had a set of coherent, intellectually rigorous rules, appropriately applied at local or fleet level, it could dispense with layers of senior officer bureaucracy.....and probably provide a more effective service to the taxpayers that fund it.

[andrewn]

MM4 - glad you like some of my ideas!


As for MFTS I suspect the whole concept is something that was dreamt up by Consultants, on the premise that it would save £Xm by Y date, based on a set of assumptions that were (a) probably incomplete or flawed and (b) are now no longer relevant. Of course, anything that allows a recap of the training fleet (RW/FW) is a good thing but if that comes at the expense of both capacity for surge and quality of output then it's a bad thing. Fundamentally MFTS feels like one of those vanity projects that needs stopping and a more incremental approach be taken. Is DHFS broken or prohibitively expensive? Are the AS355 and AB412 really knackered or unfit for purpose? If not I'd be tempted to leave both well alone for now. For FW then I see some merit on consolidation at Valley/Mona - I've seen Valley operate at a considerably higher tempo than it does now and it coped just fine; I'm sure Mona could handle much of the BFT circuits and bumps traffic leaving Valley to handle the AFT. My main concern with MFTS is the further erosion of Service input; on a spreadsheet to an accountant it makes sense but how do you surge (to support Ops or increased trg throughput) with such a thin veneer of light blue? What happens when the pipe of (cheap) ex-mil staff dries up? It just seems very short-sighted to my simple mind. Not sure if that's exactly a "strategic" answer but its the best I can come up with right now!


Regards the Wokkas then, to me, the recent purchase of 14 (?) HC6 was a classic example of reacting after the horse had bolted - the additional frames were needed then not now! We seem dead set on avoiding boots on ground at all costs for the medium term so unless we revert to a Cold War type posture then I'd look to re-balance a little, stick the oldest ones in Shawbury and consolidate remainder. Where to? How is that achieved in a "cost neutral" manner that stops mass outflow of personnel? I don't even pretend to be in any position to comment authoritatively but let me have a go anyway! For a start we know that AAC/RN Wildcat will consolidate into Yeovilton so what's left for Wallop? Not a lot that couldn't be moved to Wattisham I'd suggest so why not make use of Wallop and/or Boscombe and vacate both Odiham and Benson? Geographically it isn't much of a shift and keeps the RW fleet close to the Plain, etc. As to the financial implications then that largely depends on the amount of investment required, but there's a lot of real estate at Boscombe that is seriously under utlilised and Wallop seems ideal as it is for Helo ops.


There you go - shoot me down!

[Just This Once...]

No need to move the Reds as they only have 3 years to run.

[MaroonMan4]

Andrewn,

Regarding is DHFS broke, not fit for purpose, or prohibitively expensive I am sure that was clearly articulated in the requirement and supporting staff work that initiated MFTS :confused:

I personally believe that you are extremely brave in suggesting that boots on ground and/or the requirement for tactical battlefield lift will not require the levels of CH47s that we currently have, even as a contingency/capability that rarely gets used the ability to rapidly deploy/operate in Eastern Europe through to large scale NEOs/Disaster Reliefs I would suggest it is one of those multi-spectrum capabilities that are worth the insurance premiums. Apologies if I sound defensive or protective of my own kin, I am not.

As to Middle Wallop as our 'super base', I am sure the AAC (and even our airships) will have all their ducks in a row and suitable accounting spreadsheets as to why not. The only factor that might change for this SDSR is that the AAC is ultimately Army, and Army winces at the budget costs of JHC and things RW especially as now the intrinsic Afghan and Iraq requirement for RW has been lost in corporate memory already. Army may just tell AAC to ship out to Wattisham, which may result in your idea of using under utilised real estate and facilities at Middle Wallop and Boscombe being realised. All to enable the sale of what I believe (due to proximity of London) of the more lucrative Benson and Odiham.

But is all this change really going to save money or be cost neutral though and (admittedly a secondary consideration in the current environment) will it reduce operational capability

[Evalu8ter]

The JHC FOB and assorted CIs were a ridiculous attempt to combine the traditions and ethics of 3 services....and then had "Best practise is spelt A.R.M.Y." applied to it. The formation and gunnery CIs were appalling, and driven around Lynx/Apache needs and GPMG respectively. All attempts to talk sense were met, somewhere, by a senior AAC hood who would end the debate, even if we proved that the policy was not StanAg or ATP-49 compliant. The only discernable change I see is that the answer is now 'that's not how we did it in Afg' as opposed to 'that's not what we did in NI'. After 16 years JHC still doesn't have a single standards organisation to enforce the ever changing regs. I'm really not missing the avalanche of diktats and STARS currencies that flying in JHC now requires.

The AAC will never leave MW unless AH is chopped - they made sure the trg is there to safeguard the base. The proposed CH47 move to Yeovilton and subsequently Belvedere died because no savings could be found early enough post-move to make political capital or secure military advancement.

Andrew, you're clearly a FJ adherent but I've fag packetted your circa 150 jet package at £10Bn+ for the equipment alone, plus at least the same for the other supporting DLoDs. You'll not save that much by mothballing a dozen Chinooks! The only big ticket item in that bracket is Successor, or you'd have to bunch up Scavenger, FRES, T26, AH CSP and a few more.

In sum, the army would love to stop paying for the RAF's helicopters, the RN want to drag CHF back and the RAF guys at Andover would leave in a flash to get back into a light blue reporting chain. Let's end the experiment and disband JHC and allow the SH force to join or become an RAF Group, the CHF to go back to the FAA full time and for a smaller DAAvn to reform to look after the smaller AAC.

[Evalu8ter]

GD107,
It's not purely Army, though by dint of the number of aircraft they had in 97-99 when it was being formed they have a larger number of posts than both the RAF and the RN. But, it's a 2* notionally purple command that sits under Land and has to fight its corner with more 'traditional' Army interests. Its not fair to accuse the RAF guys in there of being 'yes men' any more than it is to criticise the Army guys for being parochial. The RAF retains full command of the pers and aircraft, but day to day, the Army is in charge. My point is that as an institution it now seems flawed and inefficient to some.

Perhaps it is interesting that few (any?) of the current SH Mafia at the top of the RAF at the moment have done a Senior appointment in JHC above Gp Capt?

[kintyred]

Evalu8ter,

Not really a surprise. If you're light blue and going places you'll go to MoD, if you're not quite top level material it's 1 Group and the also-rans go to JHC. Even the Crab 2* commanders of JHC have finished their careers there. Probably says all that needs to be said about RAF buy-in to the JHC concept.

[Party Animal]

......and back to SDSR 15.....


I'm no fan of 'Call me Dave' or indeed any other politician who never had a real job. However, he was very clear on the Tory position on the Andrew Marr show this morning. Post the General Election and if the Tories remain in power - NHS to be ring fenced (standard all party line) and the 30Bn GBP savings that would need to be found would come primarily off the welfare budget. When pushed on Defence, Cameron said he did not wish to see any cuts under his leadership for the next 5 years and particularly not with personnel. The 2% of GDP spending remains a key figure.


So we'll just have to see but at least the battle lines are far more clear than the last election. Tories will hammer welfare. Labour will probably do exactly the opposite and hammer every other Govt Dept instead.


Over to you, voters.......

[Bastardeux]

Cameron said he did not wish to see any cuts under his leadership for the next 5 years and particularly not with personnel. The 2% of GDP spending remains a key figure.

Interesting, although not more cuts and continuing with 2% GDP aren't exactly the same thing. Still, if they do actually commit to the 2% GDP, that will suddenly mean a lot more money than expected...could the dream possibly be a potential reality?

[Willard Whyte]

Isn't overseas development included in defence these days? There's where yer budget increase is going then.

[OafOrfUxAche]

Andrewn is likely to be right about RW - all those Chinooks for what exactly? Either sell some, or scrap the oldest, or put some in store - not the first time we've had a number of Chinooks in long-term storage...MM4 we may well need the level of Chinooks that we currently have for future needs, but how about the extra ones which are soon to arrive, years too late for Afghanistan?


Disagree about FJ though, in particular the bit about buying more Hawks - why even aspire to that when the MFTS lot reckon 10 Tucano replacements will be enough for future needs? Not that they are right, but try articulating the requirement for more AFT platforms when we already have nearly three times as many as we will T-6s

[andrewn]

E8 - I wouldn't say I was biased towards FJ, and I think events have proven that the stated intent to get down to 5or6 frontline FJ sqns is utter madness! It wasn't that long ago that AD and Bomber sqns were each in double figures, and there's no way we will get back to that situation, but neither must we go to the other extreme. As one of the Airships put it (Torpy?) "Quantity has a quality all of its own".

OafOrf - we might be at cross purposes, I'm thinking of the extra Hawk 100srs buy as yes, potentially some additional capacity for Trg but more likely to take on the other tasks that the T1s currently undertake, be that 736NAS, 100Sq, Reds, CFS, etc... I'm not wedded to new build and see no reason why T1 couldn't soldier on - most of them are already akin to a "triggers brush" anyway!

PartyAnimal - I too am interested to see how CMD will navigate the 2% challenge (that he laid down). If, as you suggest, there is the appetite to adhere to it then common sense may be just around the corner - but I wont hold my breath.

[Evalu8ter]

OafOrf, Andrew
Err what would we do now with more jets? Support more airshows? Unlike a FJ a RW has a meaningful set of non-combat roles for use in peacetime both at home and abroad. One of the reasons we were short of lift in Afg was Labour's culling of the SABR programme, likely supported by MoD to safeguard more sacred cows such as Typhoon/F35. If UK policy is QRA for UK Airspace, SS delivery and a limited amount of bespoke interventions then we don't need any more; We've spunked £32Bn on Typhoon because it's X times better than a Tornado, ergo, for the same capability you need X times less - you can't have it both ways if you insist on having an all 'high end' force.

Do I think 5x Typhoon and 2x F35 Sqns are enough? No, because history tells us we'll get dragged into a persistent conflict again and we'll wear out frames, people and budgets with such numbers. We'll never get back to 20 plus FJ Sqns again, but I would support either a modestly increased number of F35B and/or F35C (probably a better GR4 replacement) and an increased role for Tier 2 aircraft like Scorpion to operate in 'follow on' ops so you can reset your 'first team'. Don't forget that you should probably add 39 and 13 Sqns to your FJ OrBat..........

Will it happen? No. There is no money, the FJ force simply cannot be cut any more and remain credible. It might be a whole fleet again - Merlin 4 would be a more sensible target, in terms of pure capability, than a handful of Chinooks ( though, in some respects, having a proper 'reserve' pool of airframes would make mods a lot easier - RW don't have the luxury of attrition factored into purchases...)

[OafOrfUxAche]

I don't think we're going to get more jets and I don't think we should waste our breath trying to make a case. Losing green Merlin does indeed make more sense than trimming Chinook numbers but the Navy can probably make a better case for CHF than the RAF can for 60 odd Chinooks. Watch out Puma and Benson...

And any talk of P-8 is nonsense. Tornado? Gone in 12 months.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Tornado? Gone in 12 months.

Really? When they have just extended a GR squadron because the draw-down profile of the force was always foolish and resulted in a "capability gap"??

And any talk of P-8 is nonsense. Without wishing to start yet another Nimrod topic, why? The "mitigation" announced after SDSR 10 has blatantly failed. There is nothing doing the job and the Govt have ended up with a bit of egg on face and the options are fairly limited. P-1, CASA 295 or P-8 and that is about it. Forget refurbished P3s - no way the MAA are going to go through that process again. Anything else really is too small to meet the requirement.

[Lima Juliet]

My money is on a buy of 3x P8s. It will buy us into a larger fleet of capabilities with our US cousins as well.

LJ

[MaroonMan4]

Noooooooo.....please,

SDSR and this thread is not about what capabilities/aircraft to cut, but to establish that if politically the UK is not going to follow an isolationist Foreign policy then Defence spending will need to remain at 2% GDP (plus whatever International Development costs if it really is coming under Defence :confused:).

We know that it took sad harsh lessons of Afghan to eventually convince the politicians of the day to buy more CH47, we know that the RN has spent much effort in convincing the Politicians/MoD that FASH/SABR whatever it was called was a genuine requirement that cannot be delivered by CH47s alone, we know from the NAO report even before Afghan we were short of tactical air mobility by a considerable margin.....

And yet yet again we (subtly) begin to point fingers at aircraft types that could be chopped.

The key to any future Op (big and small) is the term sustainability ( referred to on this thread as persistence). Don't we learn anything from very recent history? IS came out of the blue and we thought the political gesture of a few Tonkas would do the job until the headlines died down - and within a couple of months the global politicians start to refer to the campaign against the spread of IS taking 3 years plus. Even the Ebola crisis ain't going away quick.

Of course for a short term Falklands style campaign the Armed Forces would try its damnedest to pull the rabbit out of the hat, and yes 'best effort' and 'more with less' and other David Brent sayings might actually just work (I personally have my doubts as the experience on the shop floor is not what it use to be), but when it comes to any enduring campaign then both personnel and equipment will become very tired very quickly unless there is depth and true genuine reserves.

SDSR 15/16 should be all about putting right the rushed SDSR 10 that had the hidden agenda of saving money (I naively thought it was genuinely taking a long term strategic view). If the country cannot afford what it already expects its military to deliver, and continues pushing people out of the door, then SDSR 15/16 should realign the Politicians and nations expectations accordingly.

[EGGP]

. Quote:
Cameron said he did not wish to see any cuts under his leadership for the next 5 years and particularly not with personnel. The 2% of GDP spending remains a key figure.
Interesting, although not more cuts and continuing with 2% GDP aren't exactly the same thing. Still, if they do actually commit to the 2% GDP, that will suddenly mean a lot more money than expected...could the dream possibly be a potential reality?

That wasn't what a certain 2 star from Main Building has been telling civilians -DES/DIO and DBS to take the brunt of the cuts because we - UK PLC are still broke and frontline first will be the order of the day when the treasury call after the election for big savings- Serco management of DBS has done all the low hanging fruit savings and their contract ends in 2016 so they won't want to bid again. DES and DIO will be required to produce a larger proportion of the savings. I suspect that wholesale sell off to the private sector is in order which will cost us more than it will save.

Other Departments are finding that the nice private sector run contracts let out since 2010 aren't producing savings and the service provided is pants as my daughter would put it. The Cabinet Office is said to be under pressure to bin the arrangements.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Other departments are finding that the nice private sector contracts let since 2010 (or perhaps since the start of contractorisation in circa 1992) aren't producing the savings and the service provided is pants well none of us never forecast that, did we?!?? I did hope that the G4S/Olympics fiasco would have halted the lunacy of contractorisation but I see that DSG (well respected for fixing broken vehicles in AFG) have just been sold off for a pittance!:ugh::ugh:

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

well none of us never forecast that, did we?!??

No,no,no,....................OK, yes. I told the MoD so in writing in 1990. I was not a lonely voice.

From today's Torygraph
Defence won't win votes - so Cameron will keep on cutting - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11325256/Defence-wont-win-votes-so-Cameron-will-keep-on-cutting.html)

[Heathrow Harry]

baffled as to why SERCO won't bid again - they are in place, they have a contract that is blue chip...... all they have to do is keep cutting. bring in more E European workers, get more secondhand kit from various places........

[EGGP]

Serco won't bid because the easy savings have been made, they will only get a management payment not the big bucks for making savings. the Dept will try to tighten the contract and penalise the contractor more severely for failure in future- oops civilians got paid several days early a few months ago , mistakes like this will be costly.

Also as areas are sold off -there is recognition that another vers exercise is unlikely, the contract will be worth less. With another 5 years of 1% pay restraint retaining staff in Abbeywood will be harder than it already is - pay peanuts and you get monkeys.

[Bigbux]

but I see that DSG (well respected for fixing broken vehicles in AFG) have just been sold off for a pittance!

Was this such a bad deal?

All staff & capability remain in place as do current facilities.

Babcock have taken on a £900m contract which would have cost the MoD £1.4 billion to fulfil.

The MoD no longer has to feed and fund part of the logistics chain - thus freeing up spare cash for front line things.

Babcock have the ability and scope to develop the current DSG capabilities

and the MoD pockets £140m (that's half a P8!)

[Roland Pulfrew]

Was this such a bad idea Yes

All staff & capabilities......facilities For now, until the company's profits start to get squeezed and then watch the pay cuts and staff losses kick in.

Babcock have.........to fulfil so they are short £0.5B already - standby for the cuts, closures and staff cuts

The MOD no longer has to feed and fund part of the logistics chain True, it now just has to feed and fund the money supply that will have to be paid to the company so not really freeing up any funding for frontline spending. You can't spend it twice!

Babcock the ability ... to develop the DSG facilities thereby running the risk of a loss of focus on military business!

Sorry but having lived through numerous years of cost effective, good deal contractorisation I have yet to witness any service delivery :yuk:, PFI or use of contractors that has not resulted in the loss of capability, flexibility or military ethos even if it has delivered a short term, short lived saving to the budget.

Oh and of course any contractor has to make a profit (something that Defence does need to do), otherwise their shareholders will soon start to complain - then watch the cuts hit.

[Melchett01]

Cameron has already admitted there's a chance that Defence spending could well drop below the 2% threshold, most recently on the Andrew Marr show if the article in the Telegraph is correct

Defence won't win votes - so Cameron will keep on cutting - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11325256/Defence-wont-win-votes-so-Cameron-will-keep-on-cutting.html)

So, that's pretty much the first half of the SDSR done - once again the actual situation on the ground so to speak will be ignored in favour of arbitrary cuts. At least we know now, unlike last time where we all initially believed the title, that the SDSR actually stands for Slashing Defence Spending Religiously.

Seems like the only thing that remains to do now is decide which capabilities are for the chop. Should be able to have that done for June and then the politicians can get on with enjoying Wimbledon fortnight in peace if we're just going to ignore the intellectually difficult bit at the start :sad:

[Bigbux]

Posting this a couple of months after the last peak of activity on this thread. Much has happened in those months, and Dave, I think, is still rankled about Putin's comments about the UK being a small nation that no-one listens to anymore.

There has been some insightful discussion on SDR 15, very little of which I would disagree with. But would anyone care to change their bets at this stage?

I'd lay better odds on a decent Maritime Patrol investment.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Strategy: A thermonuclear deterrent only protects the homeland unless there are credible conventional forces to deploy. There aren't now (hence Putin's jibe), and the majority of the voters in the UK prioritise their own circumstances over any foreigners'. Hence, however it's presented, SDSR15 will be a further cut to conventional forces, since they are strategically ineffective anyway. The Reserve Forces can will be kicked another 5 years down the road. That won't work either because the UK job market has completely changed, but the poli's are out of ideas and cash.
The UK could maybe do a Falklands 'one-off', but any long term conflict is bound to be lost, as the last two have been. This is why Putin is in for the long haul in the Ukraine. He doesn't need to win in a month, and it's actually in his interests to take 3-4 years over it. It keeps it all below the level of being worth an attack on Russia.
The UK also now has no economic weight to throw about these days, so independent sanctions aren't an option either. How far the Saudis decide to open their supply valves has about 1,000x the effect of anything the UK can do.
Collaborative economic strategy is the one reason CMD wants to stay in the EU. Bush MkII treated the UK like a poodle, and Obama treats the UK like someone else's poodle, so the UK now only has its social worker calling it 'special'. But the EU, especially migration policy, is screwing the UK voter.....
Which brings us back to why SDSR15 is a cost-cutting exercise only.
New MPA? Friday Jokes thread for that suggestion.

[Wokkafans]

Does anyone have access to or has read the "Sun exclusive" which reports Osborne has told Cameron Defence spending will be falling to less than 2% despite promises to maintain the Nato minimum.

The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6345719/Fears-Britain-wont-be-able-to-counter-threats-of-IS-and-Russia-after-The-Sun-uncovers-defence-spending-drop.html)

At least some Tories aren't happy with this

Rory speaks on Russia and UK defence spending - Rory Stewart (http://www.rorystewart.co.uk/rory-speaks-russia-uk-defence-spending/)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Geardown- embarrassed? Yes; but nothing will happen.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I don't think the procurement will be quick


Unlike all the others then?

[Melchett01]

I don't think the procurement will be quick as the Japanese have a towel to throw in as do other countries

Maybe for P8s, but if you're looking for a more immediate fix and can't wait in the P8 queue, then it may be time to consider capability rather than platform and see what that throws up. Just some ideas off the top of my head:

Buy more MQ-9 / some MQ-9 Block 1+ or RQ-4N and park them at Kinloss & St Mawgan for specific MPA duties (can't see the Army being happy about the former, but security needs would have to take priority over inter-service whinging)

Look at alternative manned capabilities as a temporary fix. Aren't Lockheed trying to plug the re-introduction of the S-3 Viking? Didn't the Italians buy some ATR-72s as a stopgap measure?

Upgrade / re-role existing platforms. Convert Sentinel from a bespoke GMTI platform to a MMA platform. But this would be a relatively low tech solution and you would probably still need another platform to do the handle the more advanced and kinetic side of things.

I believe this last option is what will be touted as a solution under SDSR 15 given Philip Dunne's answer to the HoC on 23 Oct when asked about a life extension for Sentinel:

With regards to the signature of contracts for the life extension of the Sentinel aircraft fleet, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 1 September 2014 (Official Report, column 103W). To date, no related costs have been incurred. On current plans, a contract for the development and installation of the maritime capable software upgrade will be let in spring 2015. Sentinel was already fitted with a Dual Mode Radar when it entered service with the Royal Air Force

Whether this is a temporary fix to allow the Govt to say they are re-introducing an MPA capability I don't know, but this would only work if you also have the capability to do something about the threat other than just watching it sink your subs and carrier.

[Party Animal]

Melchie,

MQ-9, BAMS, ATR 72, Sentinel, E3D etc may be tweakable for an acceptable level of ASuW capability. However, non of the above can do the primary role of an MPA which is ASW.

The paperwork is in place to support the need to regain a national MPA capability but non of us really have a clue how the election/funding/SDSR 15 will pan out.

Fingers crossed for a bright MPA future!

[Melchett01]

Party Animal,

Agreed, but I just can't see how, in the current climate that we will ever regain the sort of MPA capability we once had and will probably - and unfortunately - have to rely on something that is acceptable at best rather than effective.

But even assuming we did get something, the next question would be where to put it! Given the recent history of closing down bases that are viewed as surplus to requirement, I frankly have no idea where you would put an MPA capability these days now that the Engineers are in Kinloss, and St Mawgan and Macrihanish have been sold off.

Best I stop there, the shear short sightedness of it all, as an island nation scrapping our MPA capability and flogging off all the suitable coastal airfields to bucket and spade operators making any sort of capability redevelopment even harder, is enough to make you cry :sad:

[typerated]

If we get something it will go to Waddington.

[Melchett01]

Not been to Waddington for a while ..... Just how much more space is left there? Can you really shoe horn another sqn in? And what's the transit time to the likely areas of operation? Doesn't really seem the optimal solution.

But if all eggs in one basket is now the accepted (insane) doctrine, then I guess Waddington is the place to go.

[Party Animal]

Just an assumption from my part but if Sentinel goes in 2018, that could leave room and a nice shiney sqn building. For live ops, the aircraft would FOB to Lossie or Brize......

Or even the Shetlands depending on the platform procured! :eek:

[BEagle]

Melchett01 wrote: Not been to Waddington for a while ..... Just how much more space is left there? Can you really shoe horn another sqn in?

Given that Waddington used to be able to accommodate 4 Vulcan squadrons, each of 10 aeroplanes with a 5 man crew, would it really be a problem for a few P-8 or whatever to be based there? I don't know how many drones are based there at any one time, but they're not that much of an issue.

Or maybe move RAFAT to Leeming and base something else at Scampton?

Transit time to operating areas might be different matter though.... P-8 isn't probe-and-drogue compatible and the RAF doesn't have any boom-equipped tanker assets either, so extending time on task would be...interesting?

[incubus]

P-8 isn't probe-and-drogue compatible and the RAF doesn't have any boom-equipped tanker assets either,

Perhaps they could hastily retrofit a probe onto the P-8 if it came into RAF service. Call it the P-8P?

[Frostchamber]

it's not as if we're looking at huge numbers - probably 6 or so P8 (though there's been talk of as few as 4), possibly leased in the short term, and possibly combined with a slack handful of MQ-4C at some point.

[BEagle]

incubus wrote: Perhaps they could hastily retrofit a probe onto the P-8 if it came into RAF service. Call it the P-8P?

Or rather, "Dear Bubba Boeing. Here is a blank cheque. Fill it in with as many noughts as ye shall have need, then fit a probe to the half-dozen P-8s which the RAF can now just about afford".

A small flight of A310s obtained from whoever, modified to boom-only with 4 x ACTs, would probably be less expensive....:rolleyes:

[andrewn]

I'd have thought Lossie would have been high on the list of MPA basing options?

[Kitbag]

I'd have thought Lossie would have been high on the list of MPA basing options? There is no room at Lossiemouth, Waddington, Marham, Brize Norton or anywhere else for the necessary infrastructure to support an MPA fleet, there is no money to purchase or lease an MPA fleet, there is no desire to purchase or lease an MPA fleet, and once the independent deterrent is allowed to whither there will be no justification for purchasing or leasing an MPA fleet.

The defence of the nation is a crock of poo, only headline grabbing adventures abroad are of any interest to the current breed of politicians.

[Bastardeux]

there is no desire to purchase or lease an MPA fleet

Spare me the bullsh*t...the level of cynisism from some of the retired-turned armchair generals on this forum is physically draining. Look around at current affairs; do you seriously consider your assertion that there is no desire for a mpa to be anything other than totally ill-informed nonsense??

No finance for it? Sure, make that argument if you want to, but take your turbo cynical view elsewhere

[RandomBlah]

Bastardeux, exactly right.

Getting back into the MPA game is THE big decision of SDSR 15 (the nuclear deterrent piece is separate although naturally linked). There is no doubt that the military want it (by which I mean each individual service). It all comes down to money (which can always be found if necessary- irrespective of the state of national finances) which is ultimately controlled by elected officials who often have other considerations in their minds than what is needed.

[Melchett01]

Whilst I don't agree with kitbag that there's no appetite to reconstitute the MPA capability, especially in light of the very embarrassing public exposure of our capability gaps, I do think the point about lack of space on our remaining few operational airfields is very valid.

It's for that reason, combined with the general apathy towards Defence in general and defence depending in particular, that makes me think the politicians will try to do it on the cheap by re-rolling or developing existing capabilities to bolt on the MPA function. I could easily see any of Reaper, Sentinel or Shadow being tweaked to fulfil a basic FIND function, which no doubt would be acceptable to the politicians and enable them to say they were doing something about it, as well as being championed by the platform desks keen to preserve or grow their own bit of capability.

It wouldn't mean a huge infra bill as they look for somewhere to park new platforms, sqns, hangars and msn spt and could probably be done quicker than buying even off the shelf. The seed corn crews could be brought back and integrated into the existing sqns as the Maritime Flt of a MMA capability. Plus, any political uncertainty following the next election that will potentially hit the economy hard, as will a down turn in the 'recovery'. Don't forget, the 'recovery' has been in play for longer than most economic cycles and the commentators are already starting to look out for the next downturn which will likely limit defence spending even further.

All speculation on my part, and I hope I'm wrong and we do it properly first time round. I just can't see it happening with so many other competing demands and a Treasury that doesn't give a damn about the military and defence of the nation.

[Kitbag]

Bastardeux I think in the long term, as you grow up, you'll find cynicism wins out over naive optimism.

Not retired, still serving, yes I read the papers, so which caused more furore; the boat or the bombers? which is most recent in the public memory?

FWIW I believe we should regain the MPA capability, I think though that when DC,DM, NC or even NFor NB get told we MUST have it they're all going to say 'we managed for the last 5 years without it, why should I find an extra £2B or whatever?'

Total non starter.

BTW, Melchett, I guess from your comments re infra you haven't really met the brick wall that is the DIO?

[Melchett01]

Kitbag, I have - hence my comment.

Rather than having to go to DIO to convert or build new MPA sqn and msn spt buildings, extend messes etc, my point was that re-rolling an existing sqn into an MMA / MPA capability might be the best way of avoiding the buggeration and heartache of getting DIO involved if the buildings already existed.

[Melchett01]

Well there's no sitting on the fence by Gen Odierno with those remarks is there.

Britain is becoming a friend who can't be trusted, says top US general - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11443204/Britain-is-becoming-a-friend-who-cant-be-trusted-says-top-US-general.html)

I wonder if anybody in Whitehall will take note? Probably not, too busy working out how much they can claim in allowances when they lose their seat at the election, or how they can use their position to drum up a second salary.

I'd suggest that what we really need is some sort of embarrassing defeat or loss of face to make them realise how bad things are, but we've tried that already with Iraq and Afghanistan, swiftly followed by letting Russian subs amble about the coast whilst ignoring Ukraine, and generating so few jets for Baltic policing and Shader that I'm sure I've got digits to spare when counting them. None of that catalogue of national disgrace seems to have done anymore than raise a ripple in the PM's morning coffee.:mad:

[Clad]

Spare me the bullsh*t...the level of cynisism from some of the retired-turned armchair generals on this forum is physically draining.

Would certainly agree there is a lot of apathy out there on the forum...

Folks look is what happening.... a Cold War is enveloping again...!!! Recent events, well the warm up!

MPA is essential and despite what others may say it's coming back in one form or another, probably hurried along by the above.

[Bastardeux]

when DC,DM, NC or even NFor NB get told we MUST have it they're all going to say 'we managed for the last 5 years without it, why should I find an extra £2B or whatever?'

Don't know who DM is supposed to be, but I'm pretty sure the actual thought among a huge cross-section of the political establishment is international humiliation...having to rely on other nations to protect our own waters!?

The rusi estimates that in the now-not-unfathomable situation the uk commits to 2% of GDP defence spending, there will be £75 billion more to spend over the coming decade than current planning assumptions of a 1% increase pa on equipment. How a MPA wouldn't be top of the list is incomprehensible to me.

[Willard Whyte]

One millipede is much like another.

[Biggus]

There is still some time to go until the election, but so far pre election statements from politicians seem to include:

Freezing energy bills for 18 months.
Reducing tuition fees
Creating/guaranteeing apprenticeship places
Building 200,000/300,000/??? houses a year
A mansion tax
Immigration
Increasing personal tax thresholds
Deficit reductions
Protecting NHS and education spending
etc
etc

But no real mention of defence, in fact all I have seen was a comment on building the new Type 26 frigates, which is pretty much business as usual, and a couple of parties who are very anti a Trident replacement.

At the moment, DEFENCE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE AN ISSUE IN THIS ELECTION.


Standing by to be corrected - hopefully politely please!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Nope, Defence isn't an issue. See this thread.
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/555237-conservatives-defence-doesnt-matter.html

I have just been sent a questionnaire by David Cameron. It asks me what matters most to me and my family and what I think matters most to the country as a whole.

It lists 17 issues, from Affordable Housing to Welfare Fraud, and asks for my top 3. There is absolutely no mention of defence.
Pulse1

[Frostchamber]

There are some signs that defence is nudging its way onto the agenda in the face of world events, but the govt is desperate for it to stay off it. For example:
David Cameron gags Top Brass | News | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/news/defence-and-security-blog/2015/feb/23/david-cameron-gags-top-brass) [/URL]

[Martin the Martian]

Culdrose is slowly getting depopulated with aircraft. Once the Sea King finally goes there will be two very new and shiny hangars and squadron HQs empty, which will probably be filled with the rest of the Merlin force. This will leave B site empty.

Not sure of the runway lengths for P-8 or P-1 ops, but I've seen A320s, Nimrods and Globemasters all happily using it.

[Willard Whyte]

have just been sent a questionnaire by David Cameron. It asks me what matters most to me and my family and what I think matters most to the country as a whole.

It lists 17 issues, from Affordable Housing to Welfare Fraud, and asks for my top 3. There is absolutely no mention of defence.

I added my own box labelled 'Defence' and ticked it.

[Not_a_boffin]

BBC News - David Cameron dismisses concerns over UK defence cuts (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31695082)

aka "lalalalalalalalalalala - I'm not listening".

[Bastardeux]

I'm sceptical as to how long he can last without coming to some sort of decision; good or bad...the majority of his backbenchers, POTUS, USCoS, defence select committee, NATO, CoDS etc, US Secretary of State, and the governments of every Baltic nation are applying pressure and waiting to hear the immediate direction of UK defence policy. Not to mention those interested in our long term defence posture. IMHO, this is a critical juncture in British history; does the UK choose to step back from world affairs comprehensively, or do we choose to take an active role (with appropriate funding!!!)?

[Biggus]

However, to the best of my knowledge, the opposition, and other political parties, aren't using this issue to "attack" the government over. I'm not aware of Milliband making any political capital out of this, or any promises of something different under a future Labour government - which would indicate to me that they aren't very bothered about it.

Is my view as stated above correct, or have I just missed something?

[Lowe Flieger]

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/556008-uk-conducted-6-air-strikes-against-isis.html#post8856739

Defence is not on the election radar (see similar post linked above). Some recent pronouncements seem to be attempts to make it so, but the public is not engaged, and judging by DC's dismissal, he does not want it to become so lest it distract him from winning votes by other means. More strong lobbying is sorely needed to highlight the extent to which we are being left exposed, and to try and engage the public.

I will attend a small local meeting with our (near-certain) new Conservative MP in a couple of weeks and will raise the issue, but don't really expect any support from other attendees who are likely to be concentrating on other day-to-day trials and tribulations. Frankly I expect I will be urinating directly into a strong headwind and my small voice will have no effect whatsoever, but hopefully there are more powerful voices who will speak up for doing the right thing and putting their country before self-interest.

LF

[Melchett01]

Has anybody else noticed that the line that has traditionally been trotted out by Cameron et al, namely that we have the fourth largest defence budget in the world, has been strangely absent of late?

Maybe it has something to do with this slipped in the middle of the BBC report:

Speaking at a campaign event in Colchester, the prime minister said the UK's defence budget was the fifthlargest in the world and second only to the US in the Nato alliance.


Interesting. Very interesting, care to elaborate Mr Cameron?

As for:

"You can see that very specifically today in Iraq, where the second largest contributor in terms of air strikes and air patrols is Britain by a very large margin," he said.

"You have to add up several other countries to get to the scale of what we are doing, second after the Americans."

Well how many strikes have we done in Syria? Ah that's right, none. We've just left that half of the problem to the other nations in the Coalition who are bombing Syria. Bit disingenuous to only consider the part of the problem that fits the narrative that all is fine eh?

And how do we stack up against say, ooh, the French? With their aircraft carrier now on station in the Gulf on top of their Mirages in Jordan. And their 816 troops in Lebanon which is also teetering on the brink right now, alongside a similar training mission to our own in Iraq. And somehow, they've also managed to find time to get involved in Ukrainian negotiations. And I won't even begin to look at how many troops they still have scattered across the map in Africa countering extremists there.

Maybe people are right, maybe they really don't give a damn about defence. Their bluster and BS at least used to be credible at one point, rather than being able to be pulled apart in 5 minutes. And to think it all started so promisingly with the announcement of a strategic review and the creation of a National Security Council. Wonder what their last big decision was - custard creams or bourbons?

[skydiver69]

At the moment there are probably less votes dependent on the defence budget than there are for the NHS or education budgets. The Tories are also protecting the foreign aid budget in order to show how different the are from the 1980 and 1990's vintage nasty Tory party. However as a result of protecting the NHS, education and foreign aid deeper cuts will be required elsewhere else including for example defence and the police. The trouble is every other party is pledging almost exactly the same policies.

[Melchett01]

Skydiver,

You're right, I can't argue with anything you've just said. Doesn't make it anymore palatable though. And that's what makes me so unspeakably angry about this whole scenario. We aren't asking for the moon on a stick, just enough to be able to do what we have been asked to do and to be able to do it properly.

I wonder who will get the blame when something goes 'bang' on a crowded shopping street, or we lose a Voyager on ops, or a 747 is brought down over a city or have a major strategic defeat on operations that humiliates us as a nation and does lasting damage to our strategic, political and therefore invariably our economic credibility. It won't the politicians fault that's for sure.

Edited to add as an after thought - I guess this all boils down to the fact that we as a nation just don't 'get' or do strategy. We read lots of books on it and quote lots of Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, but I really don't think we understand or believe what we read. If we did, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

[Martin the Martian]

Public perception is now that we are out of Afghanistan and Iraq (yes, I know) so defence is not an issue. No politician is likely to commit ground forces to any more large ops until they have to by necessity as the public are fed up of it. We can continue to send Typhoons to intercept Russian bombers, events which will become less newsworthy and so will slip out of the public eye.

Retired generals, admirals and air marshals can continue to stamp their feet as much as they for all the good it will do, and the armed forces will slowly reduce in size until they are little more than a home defence force with an aircraft carrier to show the flag elsewhere, and a proportionate contribution to NATO's RRF. Which is fine as long as that is all they are there to do, but if any politician feels we should be playing world policeman, then he or she will have to divert resources and funding to the armed forces from elsewhere. Which will never happen until a Kilo-class surfaces next to the Palace of Westminster.

On which note, even a home defence force has to be able to watch over its own sea lanes.

[Torquelink]

Last month I sent the following to the PM copied to the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Defence and the cross party Defence Committee. Yes, I know I lost my rag a bit but . . .

"Dear Prime Minister,

It appears that one of the greatest influences on changing political behaviour over the past 30 years has been the relentless focus of rolling media on our politicians and the impact, real or imagined, of their every utterance on opinion polls. This has led to a seemingly total pre-occupation by the political classes with short term domestic issues to the exclusion of almost everything else and is confined to those areas which politicians deem important to voters. Thus, while the political classes obsess over the latest polls and plan whatever short term domestic policy measure – particularly with respect to the NHS and education - might lead to a lift in their relative positions, the outside world becomes an increasingly fractured and threatening place.

With all due respect, you and your colleagues across all parties appear to have forgotten that our peaceful, liberal democracy which permits the luxury of endless domestic navel gazing and political point scoring only exists because it was fought for on many occasions at the cost of countless lives, and it will only continue to survive if we are able to defend it. The lessons of weakness, so painfully learned by previous generations, appear to have been disregarded. That a strong, capable defence deters aggression and makes war less likely seems to have been forgotten as those areas regarded as being more important to voters receive attention while others, in particular defence with respect to which it suits politicians of all parties to believe that voters are unconcerned, are more or less ignored even as threats which have the real potential to threaten our fundamental way of life continue to multiply.

There is today a crescent of Islamist fundamentalism extending from the borders of Turkey, via parts of the Middle East through North and West Africa to the Atlantic. Entire nations are falling to a murderous creed which detests everything the West stands for. It is expanding daily, enslaving millions, and may yet threaten the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia leaving our energy supplies at the mercy of people who would do us untold harm. At the same time Russia is re-arming on a massive scale, invading sovereign nations and probing our own defences with submarines and aircraft in an increasingly aggressive manner. On the other side of the world China is also modernising its armed services on a scale that is scarcely believable. Taken together, this country and its allies face the gravest combination of potential threats, if not to our continued existence then certainly to our democratic societies, prosperity, freedom of action and way of life, since the Cold War.

History is littered with examples where wilful lack of preparedness has led to desperate conflict with a loss of life which might have been avoided or, at the very least, where the ability to continue to maintain a society and way of life is significantly compromised. But, while recognising that you have many other concerns, you and your colleagues seem determined to ignore the lessons of history and appear to believe that the status quo of the last 30 years will be maintained despite growing evidence to the contrary.

The 2010 SDR reduced the Air Force to a handful of combat aircraft squadrons, the Navy to less than 20 effective surface ships and the Army to around 80,000 personnel. Cuts that led to having to ask our allies to send aircraft to help us find a submarine close to the base of our own nuclear deterrent submarines. It is not just the cringing embarrassment of such situations but the apparent belief in political circles that this is just a side show with no real importance or significance. It seems that no politician sees any connection between the emasculation of defence in the UK and Europe and, for example, Russia’s actions in the Ukraine. Non-democratic regimes and dictatorships despise weakness in all its forms: indecision and lack of resolve in the face of belligerent behaviour only encourages further and more extreme aggression.

Defence and security of the country and its dependencies should be the number one priority of any government, not the last on the list. Our Armed Forces do not just exist in order to provide men and women in colourful uniforms for state occasions or just to be the convenient whipping post when further savings are to be made because politicians dare not touch what they perceive to be more vote-sensitive departments. The level of expenditure, however mishandled in the past, should not be the primary criteria when it comes to the defence of the nation and its interests and it is time that politicians of all parties stopped hiding behind meaningless platitudes about existing defence expenditure and committed themselves on a cross party priority basis to repairing and rebuilding our armed forces: even if this means harder choices in other “ring-fenced” areas. If the necessity of this was properly explained to the public instead of hidden away, it may actually become a vote winner.

We are not detached from what is happening in the world and, under the circumstances with the 2015 SDR looming, it is beyond belief that any Government of whatever hue would consider anything other than increasing expenditure on the Armed Forces – rebuilding a capability and expertise that, once lost, will be nigh impossible to restore. History will judge whether you and your colleagues make the right choice."

Needless to say, just had an anodyne response . .

[ORAC]

Official: Third world aid spending to outstrip defence budget within 15 years (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11445304/Official-Third-world-aid-spending-to-outstrip-defence-budget-within-15-years.html)

Fury as House of Commons library finds Government likely to be spending £27.1 billion on defence in 2030/31, against £28.3billion on aid

Spending on third world aid is on course to be greater than the defence budget within 15 years, according to official research, The Daily Telegraph can disclose. The forecast from the House of Commons library show at current rates Britain’s international development budget will exceed military spending by 2030/31.

Separately scores of Conservative MPs are likely to try to force the Government to commit to spending two per cent of the nation’s income on defence spending after 2015/16. A Commons debate on the commitment, followed by a vote of MPs, has been provisionally set for Thursday next week, just a fortnight before Parliament breaks for the election.

The news came after David Cameron, the Prime Minister, was forced to defend military spending after the head of the US army said he was “very concerned” about cuts.Mr Cameron said it was “very clear” that he does not want to see further reductions in Britain’s armed forces. He added: “In terms of spending, the promise we have made is that the equipment budget, which is £160 billion over the next decade, that will grow by one per cent in real terms in each year of the next parliament."

The House of Commons library was asked “for an analysis of when, on current trends, International Development expenditure might be expected to overtake Defence spending”. It found that, based on Treasury figures, defence spending had fallen by 1.8 per cent per year over the past five years to £35.5 billion, while international development expenditure had risen to £8.4 billion. It added: “Assuming that these rates of change continue unaltered, International Development spending would be higher than Defence spending in the 2030/31 financial year.”

The library said that the Government was likely to be spending £27.1 billion on defence spending against international development spending £28.3billion in 2030/31, not allowing for inflation. Conservative MPs and former defence ministers seized on the figures as further evidence that the Government should commit to spending two per cent of national income on defence after 2016.

John Baron said: “The fact that DFID spending could one day match defence spending illustrates the folly of ring-fencing departmental budgets. “We should never forget that the first duty of Government remains the defence of the realm. In a world where many countries not necessarily friendly to the west are re-arming and becoming more assertive, we should instead be spending more on our Armed Forces.” Liam Fox, a former Defence secretary, said: “There is no doubt that we need to understand that so-called soft power, is no substitute for the ability to deter threats in a hard power world”.

Rory Stewart MP, the chairman of the defence select committee, said the defence budget should be three times the aid budget. He said: It would be good to tie that relationship in so as the economy grew, defence spending would grow. The strong consensus across the party is in favour of two per cent spending of GDP on defence – partly because of the symbolic importance of the commitment and leadership Britain showed in Nato.”

Next week’s motion is likely to see scores of Tory MPs vote in favour of the next Government committing to spending 2 per cent of the UK’s GDP on defence after 2015/16.

Sir Peter Luff, a former Coalition defence minister, pointed out that in 1985 the UK spent the same amount in cash on defence, health, and education. “Thirty years later we spend three times as much on heath as on defence and twice as much on education,” he said. “To continue the trend of cuts, cuts and more cuts would be to betray the first duty of the state – to keep its citizens safe. When the world faces such deep peril it is disappointing that the case needs even to be made.”

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

My experience of the NHS and UK education is that both are worse than 1985 (though the NHS can now cure some rare things that would have killed people then).

Of course Overseas Aid and Defence are both elements of foreign policy, and if spending on Aid gave better protection than Armed Defence then I would have no problem with the spending changes.

But it doesn't.

[Biggus]

It's good to see that some conservative MPs are making a noise on this issue, hopefully with some success.

However, as I said earlier, what is the attitude of the other parties, especially Labour, who may well form part of the next government after the election in May?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

From the horse's mouth...

Issues ? The Labour Party (http://www.labour.org.uk/issues)

Thirty issues are listed. Defence is not one of them. Nor is Policing.

[Bastardeux]

So what happens if the commons vote in favour of maintaining a 2% of GDP spend in their vote, next Thursday?...Rory Stuart is quoted as saying that there is near universal consensus in the Tory party,in favour of it.

[Biggus]

Regarding the forthcoming Commons vote, what exactly are they voting on, a commitment/aspiration, or something placed in law? I believe the change to fixed length parliaments of 5 years was effectively placed into law, so the next government has to honour it or remove it from the statue books.

If 2% GDP on defence is a commitment/aspiration, then the next government can ignore it, if it is somehow enshrined in law, then the situation is as above, the next government will have to honour or remove from law. If the next government has an overall majority they can pretty much do whatever they want eventually.

That is my (admittedly limited) understanding of the situation, I'm sure someone will be along shortly who is better informed and will enlighten us all!

[Bastardeux]

Don't know, Biggus, but I suspect it's an aspiration; the commons expressing their representative will of the people, I guess. But if they vote in favour, it simply piles yet more pressure on the morons to stop trying to pull the wool over all our eyes and actually address the issue.

[Willard Whyte]

Col. Bob weighs in:

Defence chiefs told by Col Bob Stewart: 'Resign in protest at cuts' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11449136/Defence-chiefs-told-by-Col-Bob-Stewart-Resign-in-protest-at-cuts.html)

Well, it would certainly cut the payroll costs a bit.

[Jumping_Jack]

I'm not sure whether a resignation by those listed would make any difference at all. It would make headlines for a day and then be fish & chip paper. There are plenty of yes men waiting in the wings to pick up the promotion and pension. As has been said before, there are no votes in defence.

[Kitbag]

Bob Stewart 's advice may carry further weight were he to sign in support of the EDM requiring the UK Gov to maintain 2% of GDP spending. It may be that as a member of the HCDC he is prevented from doing so, although Rory Stewart, Chair of the Committee has done so.
Alternatively, he could resign as an MP, or cross the floor over the same issue as he has advised the Service Chiefs couldn't he?

[Kitbag]

Debate (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150302/debtext/150302-0002.htm) 2 Mar 15 Colmn 734 onwards; seems to be considerable cross party support.

[Martin the Martian]

Waking up this morning to Radio 4, thought I heard that Philip Hammond has been quoted as saying that there are no votes in defence. Didn't hear any other mention of it, so I may have been imagining it. Otherwise, true though it may be, seems a rather reckless thing for a Foreign Secretary and former Defence Secretary to say.

[Party Animal]

Martin, that is correct. Lots of coverage of his words in the Torygraph/ Times the other day. Interesting words too in the link provided by Kitbag. It alludes to an autumn SDSR as opposed to a rumoured May event?

[Biggus]

I must admit that I haven't yet found he time to read all of the link that kitbag provided. However, surely an SDSR in May was never going to be a player when the general election is the same month, and we are likely to get a government change?

A question I have asked on here before (but don't normally receive a response), is quite simply, is SDSR15 merely the intention/brainchild of the current government? As far as I am aware that is no rule/law that requires a UK government to hold an SDSR every 5 years. SDSR15 and FF2020 are merely plans put in place by the current government. For example, if UKIP were to form the next government, and decide to double defence spending, all staff work already done for an SDSR15 would be torn up, and the planning would have to start again.

My own personal prediction for the next UK parliament is for a minority Labour government, kept afloat on critical votes by minority parties, especially the SNP. Surely any new incoming government is going to want to get its feet under the table, tell MOD its defence policy (i.e. how much it's willing to spend) and only then can MOD respond with its plan - making September probably the earliest this could happen.

[Party Animal]

Cameron is giving mixed messages out. He stated on the Andrew Marr show that he did not wish to see any further cuts to the Army and that he thought the next SDSR would require just a 'gentle touch'. To my mind, this would support a late spring SDSR with little change to the 2020 plan. Frustratingly, he will not commit to the 2% GDP minimum spend.

UKIP appear to be strong supporters of Defence and heaven only knows what Labour and the Lib Dems are thinking.

[Not_a_boffin]

UKIP support defence in the same way that the Daily mail does.

When you actually read what they propose, it's time to reach for the Bacofoil....

[Jimlad1]

Biggus - the SDSR will happen - all main parties are committed to it. What is likely to happen is that the spending review will come up with how much we've got to spend, then the SDSR will work out what we can do with it.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

the SDSR will work out what we can claim we can do with it.

fixed that for ya!

[Biggus]

Jimlad1,

Thanks for that!!

[skydiver69]

Geoff Hoon was on TV this morning pledging to maintain the 2% spending target should the Tories win the next election. IIRC investment is Trident is separate from general defence spending and that George Osbourne has suggested integrating both budgets. The cynical part of me anticipates that this will happen after the election meaning that the Tories will still be able to claim that the 2% is being met despite this tactic requiring further spending cuts and a lowering of the overall defence bill when both budgets are combined.

[Willard Whyte]

Osborne definitely stated in 2010 that the defence budget will have to cover the cost of Trident's replacement.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/george%2Bosborne%2Baposmod%2Bpays%2Bfor%2Btridentapos/3746577.html (towards the end)

Cameron said in 2013 that the deterrent accounts for 5-6% of the current defence budget. Suggests that costs are already integrated.

[skydiver69]

Willard it looks like you are right judging from your links and what I've just seen on the WWW. Its no wonder that HMG can claim that we have the worlds 4 largest defence budget whilst at the same time having ever smaller armed forces.

[Frostchamber]

HMG has got itself into a presentational hole on the 2% target, especially after banging the drum about it so loudly at the NATO summit.

Even given what most would probably see as the "best" potential outcome of the post election spending review - ie a flat settlement overall coupled with maintenance of 1% real growth in capital spend - then defence spending will certainly dip well below 2%.

Hammond on Andrew Marr this morning went as far as to say "we are committed to the 2% target". Sounds encouraging but that's a carefully chosen form of words, as of course it's not a pledge to keep spending at 2% - rather it's an aspiration of the sort that may always remain some way off.

Even so, it's useful pressure that will hopefully prevent too much of an axe being taken to the defence budget - it looks a bit daft to be preaching the need for a 2% target while establishing yourself on a clear downward trajectory below it. And of course the more the economy grows, the bigger the shortfall will get.

[melmothtw]

Geoff Hoon was on TV this morning pledging to maintain the 2% spending target should the Tories win the next election.

Are you sure? Geoff Hoon now works for AgustaWestland and has no say in government policy; present or future.

[Party Animal]

He was also a Labour SofS for Defence - known by many as Buff!

[melmothtw]

Yes Party Animal, hence now works....

[Frostchamber]

I think S69 must have meant Hammond, who was on Andrew Marr (my post above refers). Hammond said the govt is committed to the target of 2%, which is subtly different from saying they'll unfailingly achieve it.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The thing that really grips me is that we have a S of S for Defence who has already accepted that the Budget will probably decline but is confident that the PM, who's committed to strong Defence (hidden that well), will save the day.

What's the bloody point of a S of S for Defence who isn't going to fight the corner? It reminds me of a certain CDS who complained to a certain PM about lack of Defence funds to be told that he would need to convince a certain Chancellor of the Exchequer. One didn't acquire the nickname Teflon for nothing.

[skydiver69]

:O I got my H's mixed up and meant Hammond not Hoon.

RUSI are not very optimistic about the future of the armed forces, in particular Army numbers in the near future, predicting that numbers could drop to 50,000 troops. British Army could be cut to just 50,000 over next four years, report warns - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11449136/British-Army-could-be-cut-to-just-50000-over-next-four-years-report-warns.html)

Parties of both colours seem hell bent on having inflexible spending plans and protecting big budget departments and policies at the expense of defence and police. Any pledge to protect NHS or education spending means more cuts in every other smaller department.

[Melchett01]

A depressing read in the a Telegraph, but most likely to be cherry picking the worst case scenario as that particular paper has been making a real push for defence to be recognised as an issue in recent weeks and months.

So despite the depressing nature of the article, it is good to see that people are starting to wake up and accept that defence is a key issue - whether the PM likes it or not. And if the PM is such a staunch supporter of defence and the issue lies with the Chancellor dragging his heels, surely the PM can issue D&G. It might be a bit of a 'courage & values' moment, but if he is being repeatedly blocked in an area he both believes in and acknowledges as vital to the national interests, it would surely be wrong for the First Lord of the Treasury not to overrule the Second Lord of the Treasury. A peerage recognising his excellent service as Chancellor would be all that's required as members if the HoL are not normally permitted to hold that particular office.

Or am I having one of my fanciful dreams again of a PM with a bit of backbone willing to do what's right rather than popular? Nurse - is it tine for my pills again?

[Wokkafans]

Best address any future complaints to this chappie:

Jean-Claude Juncker calls for EU army | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary?CMP=share_btn_tw)

On a serious note, do any of you guys think such an entity would be feasible, effective, or practical with or without the UK?

[Melchett01]

Without the UK, just a collection of flowery uniforms and gold braid hung over the back of the chair at a long lunch.

With the UK, the way things are panning out, not much better. When you've all got nothing in the cupboard, it doesn't matter his many cupboards you rummage round, you've still got nothing.

[Frostchamber]

Defence spending was lead item on the BBC news last night - can't remember the last time that happened. That does suggest that the subject is elbowing its way in as an issue, and the media has scented that the govt has a big presentational issue on its hands, which is all helpful grist to the mill.

The motion / debate scheduled for Thursday will hopefully help to keep the pressure up, and as has been noted the issue has a good measure of cross party support.

[Bigbux]

On a serious note, do any of you guys think such an entity would be feasible, effective, or practical with or without the UK?

M. Juncker's defence force would be like your average pop star's Close Protection Group. An expensive, incompetent, poorly-trained, gun-toting bunch of wannabes. A fashion item.

If the Imperial Emperor can get EU nations to stump up the kind of cash you need to replace NATO without the enormous contribution that the US makes, get it organised, trained, committed and credible - I'd still ask why? We already have....well...NATO.

[Wokkafans]

From Euro Army to Euro Air Force - Jane's 360 considers both as non-starters at the moment.

Analysis: Is the time right for a European Air Force? - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/49838/analysis-is-the-time-right-for-a-european-air-force)

[melmothtw]

Some interesting facts and figures in there, especially in regards to budgets and inventory numbers. I can see the arguments for and against (the air force, that is), but can't see it happening anytime soon (if at all).

Perhaps more continental cooperation, along the lines outlined in the piece between the BENELUX nations, might be the way forward? Certainly for some of the smaller member states.

[Heathrow Harry]

well a NATO MPA force would have some advantages I'd have thought...........

[Roland Pulfrew]

well a NATO MPA force would have some advantages I'd have thought

Care to expand on that HH? How would it work? What aircraft would be used? Where would they be based? What happens if you are not in the Club? :confused:

[Biggus]

What happens if you want to deploy some of these shared NATO MPA on an operation that some NATO nations don't want to participate in?

[melmothtw]

What happens if you want to deploy some of these shared NATO MPA on an operation that some NATO nations don't want to participate in?

How does NATO square that particular circle with its E-3 component? Genuine question - there must be instances where not all the participating nations agree on the mission at hand, yet I've never heard of a national caveat preventing their deployment.

Of course, the linked article deals with a European rather than a NATO air force. I dare say the former would be harder to countenance for many than the latter, perhaps.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Mel

There have been issues in the past. Some nations have blocked personnel from flying on some operations. The great thing about having your own force which is a 'contribution in kind' is it can be used for national operations when required.

[melmothtw]

Wasn't aware there had been such issues Roland, thanks for the info.

[Lima Juliet]

I've even heard anecdotally of Turkish and Greek crew members having to be placed on different sorties when certain international sensitivities have flared up. An E3 doesn't function too well if one member of the crew doesn't want to talk to the other! :ouch:

LJ

[NorthernKestrel]

Interesting Cranwell SDSR debate here from the RAeS... (with the addition of a certain Lewis Page as one of the panelists to stir things up a bit....)


Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | SDSR 2015 ? Issues, options and implications (http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/2921/SDSR-2015-Issues-options-and-implications)

[Martin the Martian]

Very interesting link. I really don't know how Lewis Page feels that dumping Tornado AND Typhoon and leasing F-18Es would have been a better idea in SDSR10, and now he advocates not developing Typhoon's air-ground capability. With the GR.4 outward bound how can he justify that?

[Melchett01]

Martin,

Because the man is a blithering idiot, offering a very narrow and tactical "junior officer perspective" - their words not mine - I'd be irritated if I were a junior officer being compared to Page.

He wants to strip all strike and attack from the RAF and hand it to the RN to be done using TLAM, leaving the RAF with I assume just air defence, which when HMS White Elephant (yes I'm being flippant) comes in to service, he would no doubt try and bag the AD capability as well.

In advocating that, he misses the point about airpower for effect across the spectrum of operations. Now I've been out of the recce game for a while, but I'm not sure how a TLAM would contribute to that capability. And if I were PBI on the front lines, I'd be far happier with several tonnes of aeroplane overhead that I could call on as required rather than a one shot TLAM. I could go on, but you no doubt get the point far better than he does.

[Avtur]

Sir Brian and Dr Gray I get, but who is Lewis Page, and what qualified him to be invited on the panel?

Genuine question.

[dervish]

I hope Burridge wasn't paid for reading out that 1997 paper. We'd just completed the trials in Cyprus and I was off to Shabbeywood.

[Bratman91]

What is it that UKIP does propose, Party Animal - there is very little on their web site other than a couple of vague and ambiguous statements to the effect that they will resource fully our military assets? I don't suppose that any party would actually say that they will NOT resource fully our military assets! It would be nice if just one party would come out and make some specific and unambiguous policy statements if only "pour encourager les autres". Right now, we have nothing more than weasel words, evasion and obfuscation from all the parties. Correction: all the parties except those that think that defence can be achieved by everyone sitting round a camp fire singing Kumbaya.

[Martin the Martian]

I suspected as much, Melchett, but I thank you for your confirmation and summary, and I agree entirely with you.

[kintyred]

A strange debate from the RAeS. I read Lewis Page's book, Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs several years ago and thought that it would be an uncomfortable read for our military commanders. While I don't agree with all his points his basic argument that defence spending is poorly targeted and inefficient is hard to refute. I hope that SDSR addresses this.

[Melchett01]

I will conceded that point kintyred, but unfortunately the validity of his point is lost in the parochialism oozing out of almost every word he utters or writes to an extent that undermines his credibility. I was always left with the impression that his idea of more efficient spending is to spend more on the Navy.

[kintyred]

You're right Melchy, but he does throw some rocks at his own service in his book. And as one who has light blue coursing through my veins, there is much that embarrasses me about my own service. I think that the fundamental problems facing all three services are an unwillingness to face some harsh truths about themselves and a lack of respect for those who pay the piper!

[alfred_the_great]

Page loathes about 80% of the RN, so he throws rocks at everyone.

[Heathrow Harry]

If NATO can run an AWCS operation I can't see why a joint force of P-8's wouldn't work

Split the costs between UK, Norway, Denmark, NL, Spain & Portugual - the belgians never pay for anything and the French..................

planty of bases along the ATlantic seaboard

they don't have to be at every one all the time and what ever you think it's better than what we all have collectively right now

[typerated]

I agree Harry.

[ShotOne]

Agreed Harry; that way we'd achieve a far more impressive force that the sum of individual national contributions (zero, currently in our case obviously) ...but with the crucial caveat it must be a NATO and not a Euro force!!

[Melchett01]

Surely it must irritate more than a little that as an island nation we even have to consider that?

It's all well and good saying let's throw our hat in the ring with a NATO or Euro force, but what if the worst hypothetical scenario happens and we suddenly find ourselves facing a hostile force alone, the rest of our partners having fallen or capitulated? Are we then relying on the channel as a defensive measure? Or maybe hoping for a spot of congestion on the motorway outside Dover to slow the enemy up in time for the Home Guard to get together?

I'm sorry, but when it's backs to the wall, there's only one thing you can rely on to safeguard your own interests and that's yourself. Given the links between the MPA fleet and the strategic deterrent, do you really want the safeguarding of that in someone else's hands?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Oran, 1940
Churchill?s Sinking of the French Fleet (July 3, 1940) (http://www.scottmanning.com/content/churchills-sinking-of-the-french-fleet-july-3-1940/)

Anyway, the chance of getting money out of Spain & Portugal right now is about zero. They'd probably welcome Russian subs as long as they promised to spent a few dollars whilst in port.

[Roland Pulfrew]

If NATO can run an AWACS operation I can't see why a joint force of P-8s wouldn't work

Money and certain 'clubs'.

[Bigbux]

A NATO E-3 force probably stands more chance of being successful as it is mainly engaged in what your man in the street would regard as "non-offensive" work.

(please hold fire electronic warriors - I'm in the realms of public perception here)

So if all we expected an EU MPA force to do was observe - there might be some mileage.

Trouble is - when we want to drop something dangerous we would probably have to have an EU summit first - and still be prepared for some of the crew to conscientiously object when the time came, or be instructed that such action was not in their National interests. - they don't all think like we do.

And as far as supporting our deterrent - I'm not sure I want to share that with some conscript from another Country.

[Heathrow Harry]

well right now there is NO MPA support fror our deterrent - you have to work in the realms of the possible

A major poll of the UK electorate didn't even have defence in the top 10 concerns this week............... and it went down to around 6% "concerned"

[Roland Pulfrew]

you have to work in the realms of the possible


Foreign MPA (even non-existant NATO ones) don't meet the requirement.

[Heathrow Harry]

"meet the requirement" -

we don't have anything - not even a moth-easten Trislander - doing marine patrols so obviously there is no "requirement" just an "aspiration" from our lords & masters

trying to resurrect the Nimrod means we never will :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Rakshasa]

How much of that is ignorance though?

I was speaking to a friend just yesterday who knows almost nothing about the military. He genuinely believed we had 'more than twenty, maybe thirty' front line fast jet squadrons, he almost fell out his chair when I told him there were only six.

[pr00ne]

Rakshasa,

Try telling him the truth. The actual number of frontline fast jet squadrons is 8: 5 Typhoon and 3 Tornado.

[Rakshasa]

Have 12 Squadron and 2 Squadron untangled themselves then?

[downsizer]

8 for a year or two proone, no longer than that.

[Kitbag]

The actual number of frontline fast jet squadrons is 8: 5 Typhoon and 3 Tornado

and soon (perhaps very soon) there will be only 5, and that is not going to be enough.

[Willard Whyte]

Try telling him the truth. The actual number of frontline fast jet squadrons is 8: 5 Typhoon and 3 Tornado.

Yes. Because 8 is so much better than 6 when you think the answer is 20+.

Pillock.

[Courtney Mil]

If you include the subject's ID when you quote them it would make every thread so much more easy to follow. You know how to do it?

[Willard Whyte]

Yes, but I can't be arsed.

try scrolling up half a dozen posts

[Roland Pulfrew]

Willard

Like! :ok: (the one above Courtney's)

[pr00ne]

Willard Whyte,


Fact is you were both wrong.

Ignoramus.

[melmothtw]

Ignorami, no?

[Heathrow Harry]

well nothing much on defence in the Budget today -

"A further £75m from Libor fines to go to charities for regiments which fought in Afghanistan and government to contribute towards permanent memorial to those who died in Afghanistan and Iraq and help renovate Battle of Britain memorials

£25m to support army veterans, including nuclear test veterans"


Not exactly your 2% of GDP...................

[skydiver69]

HH

Not exactly your 2% of GDP...................

But very clever all the same as Osbourne is now using other peoples' money i.e. the fines, to help HMG make the 2% target, although I can't imagine that £75m will go very far in that respect. :rolleyes:

[Heathrow Harry]

The other day the "Times" pointed out that as a rule of thumb any Budget change that doesn't make a difference of £ 500m in 2015 money is really just noise and don't really make any difference

Something like 80% of Osbourne's Budget changes over the years have been "noise" but he's made more changes than several previous Chancellors put togther

All noise and no trousers

[Melchett01]

I still don't see any commitment from Osborne to meeting the 2% NATO targets. Apparently all he has committed to is "keeping the country safe".

So if the PM is commited to no further cuts in the Regular forces whilst running a 1% increase in the equipment budget, that doesn't leave much wriggle room. The implication in the PM's statement would seem to point to either Reserves taking a hit, which then drives a proverbial tank through FF2020 assumptions or continued pay and pensions tinkering and ongoing long term pay restraint for the duration of the next Parliament.

[Biggus]

What makes you think/assume the current lot will get back in at the election in May?

Personally I think Cameron and Osbourne's comments are irrelevant to what the next 5 years will bring as regards UK Defence matters.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

if the PM is commited [sic] to no further cuts in the Regular forces


He's not...

[Melchett01]

Torque of the Devil,

Just paraphrasing Philip Hammond's statement from last weekend on the Andrew Marr Show:

"Mr Hammond, a former defence secretary, told the BBC's Andrew Marr show: Mr Cameron "is passionate about our armed forces. He has always been absolutely clear that he is not prepared to preside over any further cuts to our regular armed forces."

[Heathrow Harry]

"Times" today quotes the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies who reckon that the cuts the Chancellor would have to make 2015-2020 would rise from the planned £18.3 Bn to £ 26.6 Bn if he has to hit the 2% defence mark

hence the reluctance at the Treasury & No.10 to make a commitment

[Melchett01]

Shaping up nicely to be a NHS v Defence election. So we'll lose it - brace for impact.

[skydiver69]

Melchett01
Shaping up nicely to be a NHS v Defence election. So we'll lose it - brace for impact.
Its more a case of NHS, education and foreign aid v all the rest including defence. Current Tory dogma will not countenance cuts in those three areas so everyone else has to suffer more.

[NutLoose]

Rumour has it they will be printing instructions on how to fold the pages of the SDSR report to produce the future air assets.

[Biggus]

First of all, I refer the honourable gentlemen commenting here to post 206.

As to what is being reported:

BBC News - Defence equipment plan 'at risk', say MPs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31978203)

[Just This Once...]

Interesting developments in Germany:

Germany to bring 100 mothballed tanks back into service - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32257543)

Arguably the first major reversal in military cuts in Europe.

[Melchett01]

JTO,

A very interesting move, albeit of not much immediate use in the Ukraine debacle. However, I would be surprised if it did any more than raise eyebrows amongst the odd policy wonk on board the campaign buses. Given how close the polls are, the politicians of all hues seem to be desperate to buy votes and are making expensive promises left right and centre, all of which will reduce funding for defence amongst other areas.

[Lyneham Lad]

A Think Defence article on just what is left in the barrel:-

Fixed and Rotary Aircraft in Service Numbers and their Pilots - Think Defence (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/04/fixed-and-rotary-aircraft-in-service-numbers-and-their-pilots/)

Can be summed up as "not a lot".

[Willard Whyte]

Is it wrong to be surprised by the 23 different rotary types, compared to 26 fixed wing!

I know there will be a rather dull reason as to why, but, at a glance, is does seem to be a list that needs 'streamlining'. Stand by for SDSR '15...

Still, as alluded to, a disappointingly low number of each fw type, and proportionally lots of training frames.

[Courtney Mil]

Good point, Willard. But the other end of the spectrum sits with those that belive that they can build aeroplanes that can do all the jobs required.

But, again, I think you make a good point.

[Willard Whyte]

I suppose to some extent it boils down the commonality of oily bits and stuff that makes wiggly amps and whether a new tech publication is required. Same goes for (air)crew training, how feasible is it to get out of one frame, 'run' across the pan and fire up an outwardly similar type...

[OafOrfUxAche]

What happened to the Tutor? Number of rotary types (and rotary w**kers as well?) will shrink massively when Sea King and Lynx die.

[Bannock]

Foreign Aid ?

"India, which was thought to face a complete cut, will instead see a small rise of 2.19%"

This is where your money/capabilities are going.

Indian defence imports rise 56% in three years - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/50962/indian-defence-imports-rise-56-in-three-years)

[Kitbag]

India, which was thought to face a complete cut, will instead see a small rise of 2.19%

Although I don't regard myself as a trendy leftie, I think using a quote from the Grauniad published in March 2011 is a bit disingenuous.

Far better to use The Dail Outrage (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2947400/Lunar-cy-India-gets-cash-British-aid-send-250million-rocket-moon.html), whose story from Feb this year, unfortunately, seems very plausible.:mad:

[Melchett01]

So with a little over a week to go until D-Day, what's the latest thinking on where the axe will fall and how deeply will it cut? Working on the assumption that Defence will be required to contribute to further austerity measures regardless of the party in No. 10, just where do we go from here?

Returning from a particularly tedious meeting, we decided to liven the drive back up by war gaming potential scenarios - not easy given that most of the fat has already gone! Working on the following assumptions:

No further cuts to regular manning (based loosely on comments reportedly made by the PM).
No immediate changes to the pension scheme given that we're just trying to implement the last batting and it was stated that AFPS would be a 25(?) year scheme.
As previously reported a 1% increase in the equipment budget but with no guarantee that we will meet NATO's 2% target.
No desire to reduce our footprint on the world stage.

Based on those assumptions, the sorts of scenarios we came up with included:

1. Sell second carrier as soon as practicable as we will never be able to equip it, man it or even afford to maintain such a large asset in care and maintenance.
2. Chop the Tornado Force early and move to the Typhoon fleet being the go to fleet until the introduction of JSF
3. Given the stage the project is at and we can't afford to change the carrier layout again, remain in the JSF programme, but for a significantly slimmed down buy of maybe 24-36 platforms.
4. No further CH-47 buys as replacements for the Merlin fleet given reduced size of Army. AH-64 replacement numbers reduced. Transform UK's airborne capability to Air Assault. Given the current limited airdrop capability and trg hours/frames combined with the experience of the Green Army in Afghanistan for whom air assault operations were the norm rather than a more specialised capability as in previous generations, many units will have experience and with continuation training maybe able to fill the gap
5. Look to rationalise bespoke/mission specific aircraft. Get rid of Sentinel and E3, move to a 737 NG based fleet of MPA and AEWC as off the shelf purchases. Review whether we actually need and properly understand the SAR/GMTI role and capability and if we decide we do need it, integrate such capabilities on future UAV platforms as funding allows.
6. RAF Regt numbers reduced given our reduced numbers of airfields and assumed minimal deployed footprint in short-medium term. Or even absorbed into Army entirely.
7. Officer training to be centralised along the lines of ICSC/ACSC with a common syllabus around which environmental specifics are taught to the single services, thus saving on real estate and engendering jointery from day 1 and setting conditions for the creation of a Defence Force in the medium term.
8. Reserves to be either scaled back or FF2020 slips to 2025.
9. Senior officer numbers slashed in a modern version of Night of the Long Knives (second order effects being to drive more people out as the career pyramid collapses, third order effects including reduced wage bill as those further up the pay scale leave and reduced immediate pension/departure payment bill as people go early).
10. Further pay freezes (both incremental mark time and 0% annual rises) or may be even cuts for all ranks above a certain level e.g. Cpl. Allowances cut further. Officers' uniform tax allowance scrapped. All specialist pay stops as soon as you leave a post where you are actively engaged in that duty - immediate loss on posting to ground tour.

I'm not saying any or all of those are sensible or likely to happen, it was just the musings of 2 bored officers on a long drive trying to wargame possible ideas given the lack of clarity and detail in any of the manifestos so far. But given that we've seen some rather insensible and unlikely decisions made in recent years, I guess in the absence of any hard evidence then any or all maybe just as likely to happen if the above assumptions hold true.

[Photoplanet]

I suppose that if officer training were to be centralised, then Sandhurst would be the natural conclusion, as the location is more travel friendly to those likely to attend than either of the other two extremes. Cranwell would be ideally suited to either a 'Westfield' Shopping Mall concept, or perhaps reduced (demolished) to provide hardcore ballast for the HS3 East Coast rail route that could then be re-aligned to proceed through the site.

As for pay cuts above the rank of Cpl, I assume that is meant that pay cuts will be implemented all the way from Cpl up through the ranks towards GP Capt, along with flying pay being abolished for the days when aircrew are not actually flying?

[middleground]

with flying pay being abolished for the days when aircrew are not actually flying?

Assuming/hoping this is veiled (albeit poor) attempt at humour, I will add in the interest of accuracy Flying pay no longer exists. To do as you suggest would mean the RAF only want to recruit and retain on days when I/we/you actually fly.

In this day and age not a lot of recruiting and retaining will be done.

:ok:

[Melchett01]

Photo planet,

I'm not sure on Sandhurst. If it were a precursor to a Defence Force style structure, then a new facility along the lines of a Junior Shrivenham - Shrivenham Secondary School if you like to accompany the current Shrivenham Polytechnic was more what I was thinking. So maybe a new build somewhere removed from all current trg sites to reinforce the move to a Defence Force.

As for the pay - yes to all ranks upwards from cpl, and fg pay only payable when you are actually in an actual fg appointment, not necessarily just the days you fly.

Middleground,

We were just playing Devil's advocate, the specific terminology is less important than the concept in this case, although the most recent AFPRB report does refer to it as both RRP (Flying) and Flying Pay on the same page.

As for the concept, I have friends receiving other RRP which is payable only in posts actively engaged in that duty and for a very few related staff posts. For all those others who hold the qualification, they are not entitled to continued payment when posted to other non-RRP annotated posts simply because they hold a niche qualification. I only suggested it in my original post because one could argue that a precedent has been set already. I would also argue that the only people who will be affected are those currently serving, so there would be retention issues. However, for those eager youngsters who are desperate to fly, I doubt Flying pay is the key driver to their recruitment - for the bean counters' purpose, let us assume that the argument if experience vs youth is not an argument they consider on their spreadsheets

[Photoplanet]

Well, if the move for officer training must remove all traces of previous establishments, then why not Milton-Keynes? great rail links, kind of east-central and with few prior incarnations of military dogma to confound the winds of change.

As for flying pay, why not make it a perk for the days when flying actually takes place?

As for ground trades, if there are further reductions, it may be found that certain trades may react unfavourably... PSF might close not just Wednesday afternoon... The flightline may be closed every Thursday afternoon, for groundcrew training... Last minute changes to flight plans or map requests will incur a surcharge... Miracles may cease to be performed at Role change time... And we will most definitely be calling aircrew in from home, to sign the aircraft back in, or to assist with their loose articles...

[Melchett01]

I agree, the good will tank is empty and many of the things on my list would be the final straw for some.

However I refer the honourable gentleman to the second and third order effects I noted in point 9 - if they can force people out early enough it becomes a lot cheaper regarding numbers climbing up the pay scale and future pension liabilities. I would be surprised if that sort of Machiavellian thinking hadn't at least been considered by the Bean Counters already.

[Photoplanet]

Quote:
with flying pay being abolished for the days when aircrew are not actually flying?
Assuming/hoping this is veiled (albeit poor) attempt at humour, I will add in the interest of accuracy Flying pay no longer exists. To do as you suggest would mean the RAF only want to recruit and retain on days when I/we/you actually fly.

In this day and age not a lot of recruiting and retaining will be done.

_ Why should the public pay for a product or service that they are not receiving? I am in receipt of GYH(M) allowance, but this equates to 2 return journeys per month; it does not assume that I am driving up and down the motorways 24 hours a day, all day and everyday - it represents a realistic usage of public funds.

[Photoplanet]

Bear in mind that currently, the SAC who flight services your aircraft gets paid about the same as the SAC who cooks your breakfast (if you are fortunate to still have RAF Chefs)...

[Bannock]

Photo, did the SAC who cooked my breakfast also fry the chip on your shoulder?

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Photo,

On days I don't fly, I don't cease to be a pilot; I still have expertise, capability and knowledge hewn from the best part of 2 decades of military flying. The pay is there to retain aircrew; not as "danger pay" for the actual act of flying.

If you're posted into a job that doesn't need to be filled by aircrew, you already lose it. I guess Melchett is suggesting that may happen immediately, rather than the current 2-3 year ramp down via reserve band.

Naturally, as RRP(Fg) is the only thing keeping a lot of aircrew from PVRing, I'm sure we can tell what'd happen; anyone posted to a ground tour would shrug their shoulders and immediately quit...! I know a few people who volunteered for them back in the days of longer reserve banding as "broadening" tours. I know a few who've volunteered for them now, as long as they were short tours and they'd get back to flying before RRP disappeared.

In terms of your realistic use of public funds, the AFPRB have been keeping an eye on pay for aircrew for years, including PAS, and think it's set appropriately. Why do you know better?

I'm getting pretty blasé about this sort of attitude, though. I get paid an allowance based on the fact I need to use my knowledge, expertise and skills as a pilot. If you take it away because you post me to a job that doesn't require those, fair enough. But if you post me to a job that doesn't require the knowledge, skills and expertise I've spent years developing, why would I stay?

[middleground]

Why should the public pay for a product or service that they are not receiving?

Happens all the time. We do not pay NI only for days we use the NHS. I still pay council tax when I am on holiday.

We are aircrew all the time regardless of whether flying or not

New pay scheme (Apr 16) will take care of the SAC Tech and Chef being paid the same(ish)

However, for those eager youngsters who are desperate to fly, I doubt Flying pay is the key driver to their recruitment

May not be the KEY driver, but a significant one. Overall salary package is what counts and for Officers RRP(F) is a good chunk of change. In days of limited hours reducing RRP(F) to only days of flying would be a huge cut in salary.

As for you other points Melchett01, some you raise are likely and some less so IMO.

Deletion of Sentinel from UK capability is one of my favourites to happen, especially if a MMA is on the horizon. Not sure about E3 as the 737 equivalent is not held in high regard from what I here. E-3D could do with an upgrade but there is no money. Reduction in F35 and withdrawal of Tornado earlier than the date it was extended too are also candidates in my book.

Cull of V/VVSO needed but unlikely.

[AutoBit]

Specialist pay (Flying, Submarine, SF) is always an emotive subject. Whilst I agree that I use those skills to base my decisions on, whether I am in a flying job or a ground job, unfortunately I don't think this carries much weight when you're looking to make massive savings.

The argument for Specialist pay (RRP) is a simple one. If you force people out of the cockpit (thats right they have no choice) and then force a 18% pay cut on them, people will leave. Add to this that its most likely to occur at or around IPP you have a perfect storm. Therefore the cost of RRP is tiny when you compare it to the costs involved in training people to fill your place (which when it comes to experience you can't.)

Just my thoughts.

[Melchett01]

5F6B,

Correct, no reserve band for fg-related posts was indeed what we were thinking amongst other fairly unpalatable scenarios.

As for the 737 AEWC platform not being well thought of, I can't really comment, not my part of the ship, but our thinking was based around the principle that common base platforms would bring savings and synergies - the sort of thing that might appeal to bean counters and VVSOs faced with a decision of that or no capability at all - and that was the position we put ourselves in when doing our thinking - what would the 'enemy' (AKA Bean Counters) do?

One further assumption I should have added at the start of my list: the SDSR won't be strategic and will be based purely on cutting costs for short term gain at the expense of long term capability and sustainability. Again. And when you include that key assumption, then you can see how some of those ideas might appear at least plausible.

[Sandy Parts]

Sadly, I think your number 1 assumption re manning numbers is flawed. No matter what is "promised" now - all will be up for negotiations when coalition talks start.
If by cutting another 20,000 service people the politicians can spend more on the NHS - that is the choice they will undoubtedly make.
I'd suggest all sacred cows will be rounded up for slaughter in the next review (Reds? Ceremonial Guards? London bases? etc etc)

[Wyler]

Big cuts are coming whoever wins.

I see the subject of Flying Pay is as hot as ever. I can see the arguments both for and against and do not really feel that strongly about either.
However, why do we need all pilots to be commissioned?? The RAF has way too many Officers, especially at the Starred ranks and so is ripe for a cull.
In the longer term why not have SNCO pilots who, in the fullness of time, make up the majority of aircrew?
These would in effect be the same people who would have previously gone down the Cranwell route so no dilution of quality.
Saw a documentary not that long ago that was about Mountain Rescue. Along comes an RAF Sea King with a Sqn Ldr pilot and a Sqn Ldr working the radar/winch. Does not seem that cost effective.
I see no issue with SNCO Typhoon pilots either.
Just a thought. Seemed to work in the late 30s, early 40s................

[Junglydaz]

If they implement pay cuts for those above Cpl, stand by for a massive influx of "seven clicks to freedom" from an already disgruntled armed forces.

[Stitchbitch]

Wyler, don't open that particular can of worms :E Amazing that the AAC can operate a mixed fleet of helicopters that are mainly flown by SNCOs, and the RAF can't. :ok:

[Junglydaz]

Stitch, not to mention the RN as well. It seems the Senior and Junior Services have always considered that flying helicopters requires a University education AND the knowledge of which knife and fork to use! :ok:

[[email protected]]

Junglydaz - there were plenty of SNCO pilots when 3BAS existed but when they were subsumed into the RN they had a choice - commission or leave but I don't think many of them rushed off to university or Dartmouth.

As for the AAC - stitchbitch, perhaps you haven't noticed since the introduction of the Apache, the balance has swung very firmly in the direction of officer pilots. And that mixed fleet is soon to be 2 types, Wildcat and AH with a couple of aging Gazelles (if they can keep them serviceable) - and not very many of each either compared to the 90s.

[Jayand]

Jungly Daz, the 7 clicks to freedom. Where are they going to leave to? the oil industry is on it's knees right now.
It's **** getting pay cuts and not deserved but it's no bed of roses just now beyond the blue suit.

[theonewhoknows]

A university education has never been required to fly in the RAF.

[middleground]

Jungly Daz, the 7 clicks to freedom. Where are they going to leave to? the oil industry is on it's knees right now.
It's **** getting pay cuts and not deserved but it's no bed of roses just now beyond the blue suit.

There are many options beyond the blue suit. While the Oil/ROV world may be the recent traditional vocation, there are many other options. Many of the the guys and gals are bright, articulate and have skill sets required throughout the civilian world. The question is, does the individual feel valued (one would suggest pay cuts do not add to feeling valued) and is the salary attractive enough to stay.

Flt Lt no RRP(F) +45K v Flt Lt PAS +65K, I would imagine those 7 steps would happen soon enough for one set of those Flt Lt's. All shall become apparent when the review of RRP(F) is carried out in the next year or so.

[Wyler]

Only a very few will get anything like 45K on the outside. I have several firends working in industry who are ex RAF and they are sounding notes of caution to anyone thinking of leaving.
Unless you have very specialised skills and/or some form of commercial pedigree your talents are not nearly as gold plated as you think. Also, if you go into industry, especially the Defence Industry, you more or less have to self fund your salary by bringing business in.
The hours and bullsh!t can be far more than in the service and your contract can be short term and very much performance based.
With more cuts coming, and far bigger then anything we have seen before, I would think very carefully before jumping ship.
As has been said, the grass is certainly not always greener on the outside.

[Selatar]

The grass is certainly not greener just a different shade. All my departing cadre are now working in better paid jobs after 1 year. They range from Defence related, Telecoms. Transport, Consulting, The City and Charity. That's jumping at the SO2/1 level. Few reasons for a pay cut unless it's the job and a quality of life issue and you apply yourself.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

However, why do we need all pilots to be commissioned?? The RAF has way too many Officers, especially at the Starred ranks and so is ripe for a cull.
In the longer term why not have SNCO pilots who, in the fullness of time, make up the majority of aircrew?
I see no issue with SNCO Typhoon pilots either.
Just a thought. Seemed to work in the late 30s, early 40s................


Oh dear. So where's the saving? Pay NCO pilots a lot less and they will leave sooner/not join in the first place. Pay them similar to the commissioned brethren and the savings are negligible.

And remind me, how is pilot manning at the moment in the only British Service which employs NCO pilots?

[Willard Whyte]

Flt Lt no RRP(F) +45K v Flt Lt PAS +65K

Only a very few will get anything like 45K on the outside.

I count myself fortunate then. Train driver ~45K (basic, 4 day week, 7 1/2 weeks leave, final salary pension). Work an average of 1 day overtime a week over 1 year and it's ~60K. A few drivers at my depot are on ~75K. I'd be on ~72K if still in the mob.

If one can put up with being away from home a lot, working nights, and a general air of 'grubbiness' freight drivers can top 100K.

[Sandy Parts]

A lot depends on location. Civvy jobs near in rural far-flung locations (like where we used to have airbases...) will not deliver the same pay as RAF time-served jobs. Might be different for those staying near shiny city based HQs etc. Take the rough with the smooth - less pay, less eventual pension but you stay somewhere you want to live.
As others have said, I never joined as aircrew for the flying pay - I took a small cut to join but it was the job/lifestyle I wanted. The pay was a nice bonus once it started increasing (especially on PAS :ok:)
Agree, less pay may mean some will leave but that probably suits the MoD paymasters - get the newbies in to fill the seats for less cost. The value of the lost experience matters not a jot to the bean-counters - just look at the recent redundancy fields.

[Wyler]

Reduced initial (basic) trg costs.
SNCO pay with Flying Allowance paid only for hours flown.
No need for inventing so many jobs, career paths for post cockpit employment.
Significant 'cull' of Commissioned jobs.
I disagree that people will not join as I believe the main 'pull' is the chance of Mil flying rather than just the money.

Let's face it, with the size of the RAF, and where it's going, we should all be able to name the Gp Capts.

Overly simplistic? probably (definitely) but there are big cuts coming and I think a lot of the accepted conventions will ultimately be put to the wall.

Willard

100K for driving a train?????? Is'nt that the sort of thing that went on in Greece? No wonder we are up to our arses in debt!!

[Willard Whyte]

That kind of money is unusual, but not unheard of, and it means spending >50% of the year away from home. Probably made up of 50K basic and 50K overtime. The pay is also why there are around 400 applicants for every position advertised (freight & pass). In terms of freight it's paid for by the price one pays for goods in shops, on the forecourt of car dealers, etc.

Eurostar drivers - pretty much 'top of the heap' in terms of transporting walking freight - are on ~64K before overtime. Virgin and CrossCountry are on ~56K basic. Much of the difference between companies depends on Sunday working and other such arrangements.

[[email protected]]

Reduced initial (basic) trg costs. Nope!

An AAC SNCO pilot has to be a Cpl to start the pilot's course so how long does it take to recruit and train a soldier and then teach him a trade for long enough to get promoted to Cpl? Then you add the pilot training.

It just takes a few months at Cranditz to turn a civvy into a RAF officer then the same flying training costs as the Cpl pilot.

No significant cull of commissioned jobs on an AH sqn.

As for the cuts - they will be harsh but the green army will probably bear the brunt of them.

[middleground]

Only a very few will get anything like 45K on the outside. I have several firends working in industry who are ex RAF and they are sounding notes of caution to anyone thinking of leaving.

Of the several friends/colleges who left (either redundant/PVR'd on not being made redundant/not re-engaged etc) I know of no one who is not better off financially and/or in terms of quality of life (their own view of their quality of life, may still be away from home). I agree the grass is not greener, but rates of pay play a large part in motivating people to go to work, and in many cases have worked very hard to achieve the goal of aviating. Not everyone who leaves will chose to stay in a remotely similar field, and go look for challenges well outside there comfort zone and apparent skill sets.

They are re-hiring some of those that were made redundant to try stop the manning shortfall. A pay reduction RRP(F) or otherwise will not help that shortfall.

Either way I'm off to drive trains :ok:

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Ex-Army friend of mine now drives trains. He suggested you may wish to consider your feelings about someone stepping in front of your train to end it all. It happens, and it isn't easy to deal with.
My brother gave up driving tow trucks, which was very well paid, after discovering that the crashed ones may still contain victims, or parts thereof.

[Whenurhappy]

The grass is certainly not greener just a different shade. All my departing cadre are now working in better paid jobs after 1 year. They range from Defence related, Telecoms. Transport, Consulting, The City and Charity. That's jumping at the SO2/1 level. Few reasons for a pay cut unless it's the job and a quality of life issue and you apply yourself.

I recently attended a Career Transition Workshop and one of the first comments the consultant said was 'none of you should expect to take a pay cut - unless you want to'. This was backed up with some pretty good statistics, too. There were also several on the course who wanted to down shift and aim to live on £1000 net wage pcm - no mortgage, kids grown up, big pension etc... sadly, I'm not quite in that bracket!