Had Enough 77

Deliverance

In response to your response, how about this?

Current amraam is good enough, i did not say scrap bvraam it but revert back to the program when more appropriate as we need the money for other operational needs.

As for the MR2, speaking from experience, the global hawk/reaper combination would be more useful and have a longer time on station due to the lack of aar (even with AAR they can stay longerthan the Rod). The MR2 is falling to bits and has a poor serviceabiltiy compared to the serviceabiltiy of UAV's. The global hawk is also a very good platform for the BAMS role backed up by a small force of P-8 bought off the shelf from the US. The MRA4 has no export abilty (profit) and has some major problems that are sucking an exceptional amount of cash into a large black hole, even at this late stage.

Don't think I mentioned the type 45 but as you ask I feel the current numbers should be kept especially if the carriers are completed or else they would be at risk every time they put to see without proper AD cover!

I dont think I mentioned navy merlins either but again as you ask they should be kept in the role they are doing (in case the russkies bring those pesky subs down again!) and as I suggested the PUMA fleet scrapped and replaced with blackhawks/chinooks or the like.

As for the E3 I think you will find that that has been used quite a bit in the past few years around the UK and I am quite happy to keep them as they are a force multiplier and tend to be good to have around when the ruskies come bounding down from the frozen wastelands of the north (again poosible future war.)

One point I forgot to add was around certain types of training where it seems to be expected/high % to fail first time e.g FC, RAF reg etc. I think these courses should be redesigned to achieve a higher first time pass rate as repeating the whole course would be more costly.

I hope this helps your confusion. I would certainly apprecaite others views on this as well.....

Deliverance

H77,

You can't stop a program halfway through with wasting a lot of money. I know you didn't mention some of the programs but I was using your logic to illustrate my point. If the cost of P-8 is less than MR4 then go for it. With the huge amounts already poured in it I doubt it though. Global Hawk looks expensive too, can it hunt subs though? Would have made a nice Canberra replacement though.

As for your course failure/dumbing down option. Having experienced what goes for standard FC any more dumbing down would seem impossible!

I'd agree that a radical approach is needed if we aren't going to get the extra funds needed. Salami slicing capability is the surest way to having a very expensive way of achieving not a lot. Let the slow death continue.

Finnpog

Scary option - seems decidedly 'purple' & Defence Force based
but...

...the major savings from personnel (other than cuts in numbers or pay cuts) can only come from homogenising the 3 Services into one and then have core military basic training being completed at 1 major location rather than the 4 (or is that 6 with RAF additionality) currently used - and then have trade training also include branch of service training.

The same could be done with Officer training.

'Royal' has had it right in having Lympstone for the last 30+ years training all ranks in one location (and Deal before that IIRC). Particularly forward looking IMO.

Don't get me wrong - it is an absolute disgrace that the economic state and the wilful incompetence and neglect of the 'political class' has brought this to a head.

Politicians should have previous experience outside of politics before thay are ever allowed to stand for election - and I don't mean working for a party, being a researcher, or some token Civil Serpent job to fluff out their CVs.

andyy

The Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Philip Hammond, was on the Radio last night and stated that:

a. There would have to be cut backs in all public sector spending

b. The UK military in Afghanistan should get the additional equipment they needed to carry out the war

c. a & b mean that there would be other sectors of the defence budget that would have to be cut to pay for the Afghanistan campaign and the "defence share" of the overall public sector pain & grief.

OK, so what non Afghanistan related areas of the Defence Budget do we think will be cut?

Not_a_boffin

Ideally all the equality, diversity and other such b0ll0cks post, but not holding my breath........

VinRouge

Ped Flight.

Gainesy

Probably not a big saving but why do the pongos need a different uniform/ funny hat/badge/buttons for each Regiment?

Widger

Oh my god...please let it stop Andyy I apologise for my earlier rudeness but for crying out loud, just look at your original post and all those since, that is the context of my comments. Utter un-informed drivel. Lots of armchair staffies giving us all the benefit of their experience and wisdom. I thought Jackonory was bad enough but at least his arguments, are backed up with some form of research and logic!

I know that this is a "public" forum and people can post pretty much what they like but, please, have a word with yourselves!

NURSE

Some savings. Why not put RAF regt training to the infantry training centre at catterick? With an airfield defence wing for their specialised training.

The argument to replace Nimrod with P8 would cost more money than fielding Nimrod.
Does Tac transport wing need to be RAF or could the RLC not provide it with suitable training?

Data-Lynx

Grimweasel

Looks like even the USAF is now looking for similar cost efficiencies - seems the F-22 may be a bit of a white elephant for the current War too (a la Typhoon)

New Low Cost Fighter Aircraft for USAF: Armed Forces News

Modern Elmo

Weasel, I think that magazine piece must have armed turboprop trainers for COIN operations in mind, not actual f-something airplanes, lightweight or otherwise.

Yeoman_dai

I'm not qualified or in posession of enough facts to make any kind of informed decision about this... and unless we have a few current serving Brigadiers/Commodores knocking about nobody else is, really....

However, I noticed above someone suggesting moving IOT to Raleigh? Frankly, that is a ridiculous idea, and is completely wrong. All initial officer training is not like initial recruit training, for any service simply because YO's need a bigger knowledge base. What ratings need to include strategic studies and defense writing in their militarisation phases? hmm? Do they need to get their European Driving License? Know Rule of the Road?

Same goes for any of the services, it just isn't possible or right.


Therefore, you need to differentiate between them, and Britannia has a history going back hundreds of years, and in the general scheme of things costs penuts to run. Looking in the wrong direction entirely old chap.


(Why all three services couldn't amalgamate the selection procedure - (AOSB/AIB/OASC) I don't know.

knocker88

I think we need more Fast jets, Trident, comfy chairs in MOD, massive Civil Servant pensions and compensation schemes for when they strain an ear.
Now to get this I think we should cut back on the Copter budget, stop these "unfair" payouts to young men who are wounded in Afghan!! Cut back on Defense Housing. Now come on who is with me?

I know a couple of "men" who think this is a great idea - Big Bad Bob A!! and Party leader brown.......

NB - This is a joke and would never happen....

Yeoman_dai

'would never happen...'


HA! We hope...


NB: UK PLC is quite capable of funding a large Army (150 000) Navy (at least 50 warships FFS) and Airforce (significant whizzy stuff, big stuff and whirly stuff), we should not even be asking this question - what we SHOULD be asking is how we can fight the trend and get funding back up to what it should be at - IMHO, somewhere around the 1960's spend.

People say we're broke, theres no more money, well no, there isn't, but that is a symptom of where we are putting the money we have (and in all fairness compared to most of the rest of the world, we have an awful lot)

gayn kakken ofn yam

I take it you are a serving Naval Officer who has an intimate knowledge of the costs to run the College? If so perhaps you could share it with us.

????? So you want to spend an average of 2/3 billion on defence per year as opposed to 35/40 billion?

Yeoman_dai

About as much as it takes to run a T42 for a year, if you must know.

Ok, you got me, I wasn't specific. I apologise.

What I SHOULD have said, was around the level of % of GDP, that it was in the 1960's - so around 6% as opposed to 2.5% currently.

There you go.

gayn kakken ofn yam

And how much is that precisely. What is your source for this information? What are your thoughts on the Healey Review? Do you think that it has a familiar tone to todays Armed Forces?

A and C

As interested observer I have seen outside contractors who fail to deliver value for money and seem to get away with this because the "military" staff seem to think that they have no control over these contractors.

I would think that each military base should have a business manager who is under the direct control of the local military command, these managers must have real civlian business track record (ie NOT from the civil service).

The role of this manager would be to over see the day to day working of contractors and local services to the military.

Very few people in the military have a business background (why should they) and are usualy poor businessmen so get someone in who can look after the militarys interest and let the military get on with job it is trained to do.

I hate the idea of another "blunty" draining the budget but I feel that if contractors had a "real" business person overseeing them it would save money in the long run, the only problem would be what your political masters do with the money that was saved?

Yeoman_dai

Ah ha, mentioning the Healy report - you disagree that the UK can afford the cost, and that we really are broke? Well, I guess you have a fair point in the current situation, but that's your belief. I'd view that the most distressing aspect of the whole situation is that even in a period of sustained growth, the defense budget was still skimmed time after time.

Reference BRNC costs, well Andym has messaged me and we've had a bit of a discussion and I can see good reasons for moving it to Raleigh that I havn't been aware of - a Lympstone for the RN. I would still resist such a change but more because i'm a sucker for tradition and, as i've mentioned we can afford the extra £20 million a year - 1/3rd of a Typhoon, the same we give in aid to Ethiopia, the same the Welsh assembly spends to re-invigorate its south western coastal belt, and £8 million less than it takes to run Sandhurst. Not to mention how much more than £20m is wasted on defense procurement decisions. I'd argue still that if you want to find savings (not that we need to) then there are better ways to find it than moving BRNC's duties lock stock to Raleigh. The UK made $2.13 trillion last year. Within that I really believe that we can find the £20m to run a seperate Naval Academy.