UK fighter numbers to reach all-time low with loss of Tornados and early Typhoons in

[Mil-26Man]

Ouch! One wonders just how much fat there really is left to cut, or are we well and truly now cutting into bone?

UK fighter numbers to reach all-time low with loss of Tornados and early Typhoons in 2019 - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/53114/uk-fighter-numbers-to-reach-all-time-low-with-loss-of-tornados-and-early-typhoons-in-2019)

[Roland Pulfrew]

Never mind cutting into the bone, we've been cutting through the bone in so many areas, for quite some time!!

[P6 Driver]

I'm starting a rumour that the British military serial number system is going to be scrapped - we'll just give the aircraft names instead.

You heard it here first!

[Phil_R]

I suppose this can only come off as a stupid question, but -

Do Typhoons really only last ten years?

Seems astonishingly bad value for money.

P

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Presumably we are already at a record low number of 'fighters'? All that is changing in 2019 is that we will be setting a new record.

[Courtney Mil]

Phil_R,

No, they don't. The plan to replace Trance 1 was simply part of the capability growth. The article did mention the possibilty of keeping them on, but that would depend on the Government being willing to miss another opportunity to save money.

[dctyke]

And then you deduct the number of aircraft under long term maintenance and a myriad of other reasons why they are on the ground. God forbid typhoon ever gets grounded with a fleet problem.

[Onceapilot]

"You fight the war with the kit you've got". Hmmnn...I really hope there is no war coming? Oops:uhoh:

OAP

[melmothtw]

Presumably we are already at a record low number of 'fighters'? All that is changing in 2019 is that we will be setting a new record

That's true, but 2019 will (???) represent the absolute nadir, with numbers (hopefully) rising after. Even so, as the article states, they are not likely to rise much above 150 aircraft.

[Martin the Martian]

So Tranche 1 aircraft are not able to be upgraded to full swing role configuration? So retain some as QRA aircraft in air-air fit only. Or is that too sensible?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Re the author's argument: What would be the point of retaining the Tranche 1's if there aren't the aircrew to fly them, or the budget to keep them current?

Or is this the plan?
KUWhjjfOFec

And, as Courtney says, when was the last time you saw the Government miss a chance to save money?

[melmothtw]

Not too sensible at all Martin, and I think that is what the author of the article was suggesting when he said "they remain highly potent air-to-air fighter platforms and should be able to more than match any adversaries that they might meet in this arena for a number of years yet".

What would be the point of retaining the Tranche 1's if there aren't the aircrew to fly them, or the budget to keep them current?

Surely, the manning plans have been drawn up with the reduced platform numbers in mind. Increase the numbers of aircraft, and adjust the manning level plans accordingly. As the article points out, all of the Typhoon investment has already been made, and all of the operating and support infrastructure will remain budgeted for out to the 2030 OSD of the T2 and T3 aircraft - how much more would it cost for the T1s to ride along on their coat tails? For sure, there would be an economic hit, but I'd suggest it would be relatively minor when offset by the added capability.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

2019 will (???) represent the absolute nadir, with numbers (hopefully) rising after


Let's hope so!

Never mind cutting into the bone, we've been cutting through the bone in so many areas, for quite some time!!


Some would say at least one limb has been amputated already...:(

[Phil_R]

Thanks, Courtney.

I suppose the remaining salient comparison is how much they're worth (53 Typhoons including depreciation seems like several billion) and how much it costs to run them per year, given that support for the type continues in general.

What's that, three squadrons' worth?

P

[Mil-26Man]

Interesting editorial comment at the end here UK Fighter Numbers to Reach All-Time Low with Loss of Tornados and Early Typhoons In 2019 (excerpt) (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/165505/uk-fighters-to-drop-to-all_time-low-in-2019.html) , and does somewhat open the MoD up to ridicule with it's response to the original Jane's piece that:

The RAF has and will have the aircraft it needs to meet its commitments around the world, whether that’s conducting Tornado air strikes against ISIL in Iraq, policing Baltic air space and securing the skies over the UK and in Falkland Islands with Typhoon jets, or providing vital surveillance over Syria with Reaper flights. Tough decisions were made during the last Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) to rationalise our fast jet forces into two advanced and efficient fleets and we continue to assess future requirements ahead of this year’s SDSR, which is supported by our £160bn equipment programme that will deliver the fifth-generation Lightning II joint strike fighter.

[Hempy]

It's ok, you'll have the F-35 by then.....Maybe..:ugh:

Thank God for the Super Hornet.

[Mil-26Man]

But in what numbers Hempy? Only 15 to 20 by 2019, according to the piece, and that's the problem.

[Danny42C]

We could re-arm the Spits and Hurricanes on the Memorial Flight, I suppose, and buy a few back from the civil register. Even at £1.5 million they would be cheaper than what's on offer now; you could hang a radar pod on one wing and an air-to-air missile on the other.

(I think, perhaps, that I have been too long out in the sun !).

D.

[glad rag]

God forbid typhoon ever gets grounded with a fleet problem.

HoHoho. Not.

[Finningley Boy]

Re the author's argument: What would be the point of retaining the Tranche 1's if there aren't the aircrew to fly them, or the budget to keep them current?


Are you saying that there are absolutely no conceivable circumstances under which any of HM Forces will ever expand again? and that there isn't the Human resource any longer to facilitate any future expansion?

Don't forget with the defence budget being retained at 2%, Afghanistan no longer an issue and SAR going to Bristow Helicopters, together with a host of new threats to consider, a resurgent Russian Hegemony and IS, is it not just possible that the Tornados could be replaced by the retention of the Tranche 1 Typhoons, allowing the earlier aircraft to become dedicated to the air defence role while the more developed take on the offensive role from the Tornados. It would be a very moderate expansion over a period of time. :ouch:

FB

[Hangarshuffle]

The present Govt. and the one before have set it out for years. They want much smaller traditional forces and they are removing them rapidly.
And they want more controllable aggressive spies for want of a better phrase, larger Special Forces, expeditionary warfare aerial drones with a trans global range (for assassination missions), cyber warfare capability (fantastic catch all phrase) 2 x carriers (which already are looking like white elephants now-a mistake but one they are pressing on with), an ICBM submarine force (God knows why=political and no one dare cancel it), lighter adaptable mobile forces for brushfire wars and rapid response- you've seen the buzz words and phrases.
Drones are getting smaller and better at a frightening pace and their use will increase-spying/assassination tools is how they are used and all they are there for. I see weapons being smaller and smarter and deadlier and stand off.
Tanks, Tornadoes all that dated heavy metal stuff is dated and going, going gone, get used to it. Tornadoes have been around for 35 years, past it and on their way out. The threat they were designed for=long gone.


Forces tailored for the 2030s 40s and 50s will face different counter threats and have different tasks and those decades will be will be dominated by Asian and Islamic countries anyway- bet on it. We have to fit in and around them, a difficult task, but one we will have to swallow hard and master.


Anyway whose left that you want to fight in the old fashioned way? Has anybody on Prune been to London lately because its now like a foreign city, with the expensive real estate being snapped up by wealthy foreigners, but a city largely manned in the service sector by poor foreigners-this is not a quirky accident. Banks and businesses are very largely foreign owned now in the UK.Try to imagine what the future world will look and be like. The future forces are going to be nothing at all like the ones you grew up with.
To me the UK forces look more and more less like a force designed to defend a nation or nation hood but one designed more to link with others to protect big business and vested world business interests.
See recent military activity of the RAF officers embedded with the US forces be they bombing from carriers or operating drones from Nevada or Timbuktu. They seem almost beyond Parliament authority - that's the future.
We are going to be more stiletto than broadsword in the future.
The future miltary is going to be nothing at all like the even recent past.

[ShotOne]

Why are we so keen to retire things (specifically the Tranche 1 Typhoons)? Surely the cost of retaining these, even if a bit less capable than their new stablemates would be small relative to their potential usefulness in the game of defence Top Trumps.

[Frostchamber]

Surely we need to see a small uplift coming out of SDSR given world events and what their airships are saying about FJ numbers - eg enough T1s retained to stand up a sixth Typhoon sqn (20-25 airframes?) - unusually there's a relatively good value and achievable route available to alleviate a bit of pressure.

Alongside that some sort of modest uplift too in earlyish F35 acquisition - enough at least for a third (and ideally fourth) front line sqn, at which point the T1s could go. A nudge towards a force that you can do something relatively sustainable with, and a better fit too (presentationally and actually) with operating two carriers. Nine FJ sqns doesn't sound especially lavish to me and ought to be a realistic outcome.

[Stu666]

Ideal solution for the Tranche 1's? :E

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h189/stunutt/TheNewredArrows.jpg

(image credit "stunutt")

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

To justify the :E, I thought you might suggest putting the Tiller Girls in the corner of a hangar in Wales for 15 years.

[pr00ne]

Hangarshuffle,


You really are a strange sort aren't you?

You must have visited a very different London from the one that I live and work in!
A foreign city? One where the vast majority of the working and residential population is British? Perhaps THE most popular and frequented capital city on the face of the planet?
As for the rest of your clap trap. Around one third of UK industry is foreign owned, so that means that around two thirds isn't, a strange definition of most...
And that one third of UK industry that is UK owned actually owns and operates billions of pounds worth of overseas operations and companies, we do live in a global economy dominated by global multinationals.

As to the banks, mainly foreign owned? I beg to differ! ALL of the top 5 UK banks are 100% UK owned, quite a few by the Government, so that means they are owned by us! And they are some of the largest banking organisations in the world, operating multinationally.

Of course the majority of the major banking operations in London are foreign owned, it is THE international financial capital of the world and every single bank on the face of the planet has major operations there precisely because of that reason, indeed quite a few major foreign banks and financial institutions base their global and international headquarters and operations in London, for a reason.

Happy in my London, best of luck to you in yours, wherever that happens to be.

As to the rest, it was like reading a weird internet conspiracy web site, not entirely related to the world around us, and you.

Stu666,

An excellent idea! Could also replace 100 and 736 fleets.

[Heathrow Harry]

well said pr00ne :D:D

[papajuliet]

The words "ostrich", "head" and "sand" spring to mind when prOOne posts.

[pr00ne]

papajuliet,


Really? Why?

Maybe because I post facts and observations and not cliched opinions?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Maybe because I post facts and observations and not cliched opinions?
Well of course it could be argued that your post was also cliched opinion, just a left wing blinkered one. What makes your "fact" and observations any more (or less) true than anyone else's fact and observation?

But then what has this got to do with FJ numbers in the RAF?

[Top West 50]

On the other hand, we have at least 2 Voyagers per Squadron!

[andrewn]

TW50 - yes, I've thought that myself and it is kind of laughable:O

Also agree with Hangarshuffle that it has been stated policy for a few years now that we were heading for no more than 5 or 6 FJ sqns - so no real surprise.

I think what's surprising is that its taken so long to realise that this number is woefully inadequate. Let's hope that, unlike pr00ne, those that hold the purse strings will start making some sensible choices

Leeming to house tranche 3 swing role Typhoons sounds eminently sensible to me (to plug gap between GR4 and sufficient numbers of JSF), but I doubt it will happen!

[Chainkicker]

Not exactly on topic, but

As to the banks, mainly foreign owned? I beg to differ! ALL of the top 5 UK banks are 100% UK owned

I would suggest that neither HSBC nor Barclays, the 2 largest, are in any way "UK owned".

[O-P]

My understanding of the original plan was that once the T3 a/c came on line, the T1s would be refurbished to T3 standard. T2s would never be updated and just be used as spare farms once the refurbished T1s became available. Of course, it also possible that I dreamt that in a gin induced haze!


CM might know more than I.

[Melchett01]

It's a rare thing, but I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with both Hangarshuffle and pr00ne simultaneously.

To my mind, and from the meetingsI sit in on a daily basis and the work strands I deal with, it's very clear to me that this government views counter-terrorism rather than military ventures as the major issue. Consequently there has been a subtle shift from defence and security being different things - MOD and Spooks - to defence being a component part of the broader security environment. That's why there is now less of a focus on exquisite technology and heavy metal and more on intelligence, communications and light, rapid reaction forces. That said, there is still the investment in said heavy metal etc, but it now really is only one part of a far greater consideration. That's why I think we are struggling so much these days; the political perception appears to be that the major threat, for now, isn't state on state (it isn't necessarily even Russia long term, I'd be looking at China and Iran for state on state issues), the government deems security and terrorism as the major threat and is investing heavily on countering it up stream through the work of the FCO and agencies like DFID and downstream through the work of the police and security services. And none of that sadly requires large numbers of fast jets (or tanks and destroyers for that matter).

As for London, I took my mum to the RAF. Club last weekend for afternoon tea. She loved the Club, hated London. Busy, crowded, unfriendly people barging around. For me, I love it and find the dynamism and international aspects fascinating. Wouldn't change a thing.

[pr00ne]

chainkicker,

They are both 100% in every possible way UK owned.

[Valiantone]

O-P


All the Typhoon T.1s have been modded to T.3s. There never were any T.2s the single seat F.2s were all modded to FGR.4s.


I hope someone can see sense and keep the Tranche 1s, and for the Tranche 3s well what are we going to do with 9,12, 15, and 31 when they have no more Tonkas


V1

[O-P]

Valiantone,


Ah, I see the problem. I was using "T" as an abbreviation for Tranche, not Trainer.

[Chainkicker]

chainkicker,

They are both 100% in every possible way UK owned.

Do you have a list of shareholders countries of residence then?

[pr00ne]

chainkicker,

That's not how you determine ownership. By that measure almost every company on the face of the planet would be UK owned!

A company is domiciled in a country, it has it's headquarters in that country and it is registered in that country. Our banks are all of those.

[Willard Whyte]

Let's just agree that their respective head offices are London based.

[Heathrow Harry]

It sometimes crosses my mind that as the number of airframes gets smaller and smaller it becomes more worthwhile for any potential adversary to try and take out some of them on the ground "at home"

with 20 B-2's for example if you could take out even 3 or 4 on the ground you'd have really compromised USAF capabilities

we'd look a bit silly if someone takes out 10 Typhoons :ooh:

numbers have a force of their own

[Valiantone]

And its not only the number of each type gone down, We don't have as many bases now either.


V1

[barnstormer1968]

Heathrow Harry.
If you consider how the B2's are based and where then it's quite possible to render the entire force unusable without damaging even one aircraft.

[Frostchamber]

...That's why I think we are struggling so much these days; the political perception appears to be that the major threat, for now, isn't state on state (it isn't necessarily even Russia long term, I'd be looking at China and Iran for state on state issues), the government deems security and terrorism as the major threat and is investing heavily on countering it up stream through the work of the FCO and agencies like DFID and downstream through the work of the police and security services. And none of that sadly requires large numbers of fast jets (or tanks and destroyers for that matter).

I think that's right and some shift in the overall balance of things to reflect that was probably appropriate. I think the issue we face now though is that things have shifted a little too far to quickly - and so it is that we find ourselves struggling to mount a sustained deployment of 8 airframes so as to get two into the air on ops, with nothing much left in the cupboard.

The turn of world events suggests that, shift of emphasis notwithstanding, things aren't quite in kilter as they stand (and as they will be in 2019 when front line FJ strength dips to just 6 sqns on current plans); and that a little rebalancing is needed in a positive direction if we're not to continue running on fumes. I doubt many would realistically suggest veering back towards the 30 or so sqns we had only a couple of decades ago, but an establishment of say 9 sqns (5 Typhoon, four F35) by the early-mid 2020s (supplemented in the short term by the temporary stand-up of a sixth Typhoon sqn via retaining some Tranche 1s) would put things into slightly better balance, and shouldn't be entirely unrealistic as an SDSR outcome.

Anyway that's my two penn'orth for what little it's worth. Other views are available.

[Dan Winterland]

The last time we were down to this level was in 1936. Something happened a few years after that. Exactly what escapes me.









''Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it''. George Santayana.

[Melchett01]

with 20 B-2's for example if you could take out even 3 or 4 on the ground you'd have really compromised USAF capabilities

When you're into small fleet sizes (or air forces for that matter) with comparatively few people trained to operate and maintain them, that's when it becomes very personal as the individuals rather than aircraft become targets if you want to take out the fleet en masse.

[Martin the Martian]

Good point, Melchett, particularly when thinking about the Taliban raid on Camp Bastion. Begs the question as to where you concentrate your ground defences on ops; aircraft or personnel?

[Just This Once...]

“Whether it’s in Iraq, Syria, Libya or elsewhere — as Prime Minister, if I believe there is a specific threat to the British people, would I be prepared to authorise action to neutralise that threat? Yes, I would.”

It is almost two years since David Cameron lost a vote on intervening in the Syrian war and he has barely spoken about foreign affairs since. He is now slowly returning to the subject, making the case for pursuing Islamic State in Syria. The recent murder of 30 British holidaymakers in Tunisia was almost certainly planned in Isis’s Syrian stronghold of Raqqa. The Prime Minister is making the fairly simple case that the military ought to be able to pursue the enemy.

But there is no chance of the RAF ‘neutralising’ the threat. For all his interventionist instincts, the Prime Minister has spent five years imposing deep cuts on the armed forces; by some estimates, he has reduced the UK fighting capability by up to a third.

This week, we learnt that the RAF’s fleet of fighter aircraft is to shrink to its smallest in history. Gen Sir Nick Houghton, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has warned that the RAF is ‘at the very limits of fast-jet availability and capacity’. It’s odd that the Prime Minister is so eager to join the Americans in bombing the Syrian side of the border when Britain has been able to make so little difference in northern Iraq.

The RAF is able to spare just eight Tornados, themselves two years away from being in a museum, and a generation behind the American F-22s they fly beside. Only two can fly at any one time, dropping only 5 per cent of the bombs. Britain’s impact has been welcome, but marginal. We should not pretend that our presence in Syria would be any less marginal.

Cameron cannot blame parliament: our weakness is due to the decisions that he has taken, which our allies have watched with dismay. As the American magazine Foreign Policy pointed out recently, Britain is shrinking its army to the same size as the New York police department. We bloat the foreign aid budget and reduce the Foreign Office budget by a fifth. We lay off Gurkhas while doubling handouts to Nepal. This week, George Osborne defended the aid budget by saying that he wants to ‘make sure that we are saving lives’.

Aid is good at allowing politicians to make pious statements about their generosity with other people’s money. The aid budget has risen by £3.5 billion under Osborne, while £5.4 billion has been cut from defence. We’re now very good at finding mates for rare Madagascan fish; not so good at helping Kurds fight Isis (so far, we have only managed to spare 40 heavy machine-guns).

The Chancellor has promised not to let military spending slide below 2 per cent of economic output, the Nato minimum. A welcome pledge, but it won’t bring the military (or its capabilities) back to where things were when he took office. Only years of investment could achieve that.

The Prime Minister needs to remember this when making speeches: the RAF is now smaller than the force that was at the disposal of his predecessors. With his spending decisions, he has forfeited the right to talk about ‘closing down ungoverned spaces’ in the Sahara or ‘neutralising’ the threat from Isis. The sad truth is that we no longer have a military strong enough to do so.

Article credit: Print edition of The Spectator magazine, dated 25 July 2015.

Pretty much sums it up.

[Roadster280]

... well what are we going to do with 9,12, 15, and 31 when they have no more Tonkas


Er.. get rid of them. The plan is to reduce.

When the Chancellor is saying "expect 25 to 40% cuts over 4 years, standfast NHS and certain education budgets", then I am in no doubt that there will be redundant airmen, squadrons and airfields.

What I don't quite get is that if the UK has affirmed its commitment to 2% of GDP on defence, then 25% cuts over 4 years doesn't add up, given that the 2% is currently struggling to be met, and has to include things like intelligence agencies to get to the 2%. Perhaps he is expecting GDP to fall...

[Easy Street]

Roadster,

I think you've misunderstood. With the 2% commitment, Defence has joined the hallowed ranks of the 'protected' budgets alongside Health, Education and International Development.

[Roadster280]

Roadster,

I think you've misunderstood. With the 2% commitment, Defence has joined the hallowed ranks of the 'protected' budgets alongside Health, Education and International Development.

Good! I must have misread; I only saw NHS and Education on a per-pupil basis. That clears it up.

So maybe there is/will be money available to be shifted onto doing some sensible things rather than knee-jerk cuts, in Defence anyway.

[Heathrow Harry]

actually he's promised a small increase in military expenditure

but the trick is what he's loading int to the pot as "military expendiure...."

Also, in real terms, the cost of kit goes up much faster than just about anything else in the economy so we're still in for major cutbacks IMHO

[glad rag]

Where's the personnel to man the one operational carrier and it's defensive/support fleet coming from btw??

The Army?? :D:D:D

[zedder]

Just saw a 4 Ship of Tornados inbound to Lossie. Guess they've had a serviceability miracle there today!

[Biggus]

zedder,

Maybe they were visiting Germans? ;)

[ORAC]

Roadster,

I think you've misunderstood. With the 2% commitment, Defence has joined the hallowed ranks of the 'protected' budgets alongside Health, Education and International Development.

The Times: Spy funds help Britain meet Nato cash pledge (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4509271.ece)

Britain will meet a Nato promise to spend 2 per cent of national income on defence this parliament only by adding the budgets of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ into the mix for the first time, an authoritative study reveals today.

The Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) worked out that the proportion of money spent on defence would have fallen to 1.85 per cent of gross domestic product by the end of the decade without the inclusion of spy agency funds when calculating the Nato figure......... Professor Malcolm Chalmers, director of research and policy at Rusi and author of the report, set out how Britain had expanded a range of items included in the Nato formula to ensure it remains one of only five member states due to meet the 2 per cent target this year.

The 28-nation alliance has a list of criteria that countries are allowed to include when calculating defence expenditure, but until now the Ministry of Defence had not added war pensions, civil servant pensions, money charged from rent of MoD property and cash spent on United Nations peace-keeping missions. The inclusion of these items — legitimate under Nato rules — inflated Britain’s defence spending total by £2.8 billion, Mr Chalmers said.

Even if the government continued to include these new sources of funds each year, by 2020 or 2021 it would again fall to below the 2 per cent threshold, he said. This is because the chancellor only committed to increasing the core defence budget — the real benchmark for what a country spends on its armed forces — by 0.5 per cent each year at a time when the economy is forecast to grow annually at 2.4 per cent. The almost five-fold difference in growth rate will create a shortfall of £2.7 billion in 2019-2020 and £3.5 billion the following year when calculating defence spending as a proportion of 2 per cent of GDP, according to Mr Chalmers.

The intelligence fund, which covers the costs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, is set to total about £2.2 billion in the year to March 2021. A joint security fund that has been created by Mr Osborne is due to total £1.5 billion that same year. These two pots of cash would be enough to close the gap to the end of parliament, the Rusi report said..........

[Frostchamber]

The Times: Spy funds help Britain meet Nato cash pledge (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4509271.ece)

Britain will meet a Nato promise to spend 2 per cent of national income on defence this parliament only by adding the budgets of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ into the mix for the first time, an authoritative study reveals today.

The Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) worked out that the proportion of money spent on defence would have fallen to 1.85 per cent of gross domestic product by the end of the decade without the inclusion of spy agency funds when calculating the Nato figure......... Professor Malcolm Chalmers, director of research and policy at Rusi and author of the report, set out how Britain had expanded a range of items included in the Nato formula to ensure it remains one of only five member states due to meet the 2 per cent target this year.

The 28-nation alliance has a list of criteria that countries are allowed to include when calculating defence expenditure, but until now the Ministry of Defence had not added war pensions, civil servant pensions, money charged from rent of MoD property and cash spent on United Nations peace-keeping missions. The inclusion of these items — legitimate under Nato rules — inflated Britain’s defence spending total by £2.8 billion, Mr Chalmers said.

Even if the government continued to include these new sources of funds each year, by 2020 or 2021 it would again fall to below the 2 per cent threshold, he said. This is because the chancellor only committed to increasing the core defence budget — the real benchmark for what a country spends on its armed forces — by 0.5 per cent each year at a time when the economy is forecast to grow annually at 2.4 per cent. The almost five-fold difference in growth rate will create a shortfall of £2.7 billion in 2019-2020 and £3.5 billion the following year when calculating defence spending as a proportion of 2 per cent of GDP, according to Mr Chalmers.

The intelligence fund, which covers the costs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, is set to total about £2.2 billion in the year to March 2021. A joint security fund that has been created by Mr Osborne is due to total £1.5 billion that same year. These two pots of cash would be enough to close the gap to the end of parliament, the Rusi report said..........

True enough but that doesn't negate Easy Street's point about defence now being a protected budget in terms of the 25 and 40% cuts options that other non ring fenced departments have been asked to identify. Certainly there are real questions around creative accounting and how the budget will remain at 2% in the face of economic growth - ie can the defence budget grow fast enough to keep pace without creative accounting - but that's not quite the same thing.

[Heathrow Harry]

the real problem is that defence expend inflates faster than the rest of the economy - so a 2% raise actually still buys you less...............

[Fonsini]

Nah, here's what "they" are thinking.

You maintain 4 SLBMs and 2 big carriers to pretend you're just like America only smaller and more polite, you buy lots of drones to kill people who wear tea towels and tend goats 3,000 miles away while the ones who live 30 miles away furtively plot your destruction, and you maintain one squadron of ridiculously expensive Typhoons to fly formation with Russian Bears 50 miles from Blackpool with each QRA aircraft carrying 20% of the RAF's entire war reserve of air-to-air missiles so that the Daily Mail can post photos of them with the caption "RAF Fends Off Russian Intruder".

The army basically becomes the SAS plus a few extra men in hairy hats who "guard" HRH. There's your future armed forces.

PS - anyone still remember Front Line First ?

[1.3VStall]

Fonsini.

It was "Front Room First" for Sir Sandy of Arabia, as I recall!:)

[teeteringhead]

With the 2% commitment, Defence has joined the hallowed ranks of the 'protected' budgets alongside Health, Education and International Development. But not just "Spooks various" coming under defence spending, but I understand in a further bit of "creative accounting" Service pensions will start to be paid from the Defence Budget .......

[Fonsini]

Fonsini.

It was "Front Room First" for Sir Sandy of Arabia, as I recall!


I'm outraged !! :E

[1.3VStall]

Fonsini,

Why? By all accounts the carpets, curtains and soft furnishings were absolutely fabulous! (If a trifle expensive!)

[Heathrow Harry]

and of course nothing to do with him

what do they say

"It's not the man you salute it's the carpet he stands on ??" or something like that...........................