SDSR 2016?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ironic (or perhaps sad would be a better word) that most of you are going after pr00ne because of his political beliefs rather than the infantile rant by stendec5, which caused pr00ne to post.
@pr00ne. I suspect you and I have different views on many things but on this you are 100% correct...
Any member of society (military of otherwise) that does not get that is at best a misguided fool and at worst a criminal. We live in a democracy...anybody want to live in a dictatorship or totalitarian regime, there's plenty to chose from and most of them would be glad to have you aboard.
@pr00ne. I suspect you and I have different views on many things but on this you are 100% correct...
There is only one definite outcome of a military coup and that is that you will have committed treason. You will be a traitor.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know where the question about coups being anything other than treason comes from, but TOFO and pr00ne have more than adequately covered it off.
On SDSR: post yesterday's budget, two posts are firmly in the ground. One, that under Osborne, state spending over the medium term will fall to 38% of GDP or so, the lowest since the 1940s. Martin Wolff in the FT is good on this this morning. With an ageing population and ever increasing cost of new healthcare treatments, this translates into much tighter budgets for everything else.
Or not quite everything else: Osborne committed himself to maintaining the overseas aid budget at 0.7% of GDP, despite the fact that there is no evidence behind this number. This will, however the budget gets divided up, impact on the amount that MoD will get. I expect to see some push back on it from the thinktanks, but unless there's a major row, it won't change.
S41
On SDSR: post yesterday's budget, two posts are firmly in the ground. One, that under Osborne, state spending over the medium term will fall to 38% of GDP or so, the lowest since the 1940s. Martin Wolff in the FT is good on this this morning. With an ageing population and ever increasing cost of new healthcare treatments, this translates into much tighter budgets for everything else.
Or not quite everything else: Osborne committed himself to maintaining the overseas aid budget at 0.7% of GDP, despite the fact that there is no evidence behind this number. This will, however the budget gets divided up, impact on the amount that MoD will get. I expect to see some push back on it from the thinktanks, but unless there's a major row, it won't change.
S41
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing solves an economic problem in an instant old chap. Usually because every action has a reaction...intended or otherwise.
Caring for the elderly - Western style - is expensive, however you do it.
Caring for the elderly - Western style - is expensive, however you do it.
Rationed NHs provision for those older than normal pension age would solve the deficit in an instant. It's pretty much what NICE are up to anyhow.
My very elderly mother receives injections every month for macular degeneration. The "lottery" means she must pay £50 a time to get to the hospital and back, 40 miles away. Frankly ludicrous for someone on their own and essentially blind.
If she lived here, the NHS would send a taxi, but not pay for the injections.
Which to standardise across the country? That is the question for politicians and what they're paid for. But both "savings" are deemed broadly acceptable by politicians of the same colour. It would certainly raise the profile of the gross waste in public services, and perhaps persuade Parliament to consider outlawing deliberate waste in MoD. That waste, and the certain knowledge most of it can be avoided, is what makes the Treasury right when seeking to cut our budget. Trouble is, they don't apply the same rules to the NHS, so their waste is even worse.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ppOOne. I would suggest that you get your head out of your, doubtless ample, posteria, and actually READ the post again. You sound like a typically odious system puppet.
The British Armed forces are shrinking to the point where they are becoming unable to do their job. Too few of everything, and yet more cuts to come. This threatens the very existence of this nation should a serious crisis blow up (as history shows they often do). I suggest that YOU, not I, fit the bill of "traitor" (is that what you called me?) only you're probably too dumb to see it.
I love my country and it breaks my heart to see what you're apparent friends have done/continue to do to it.
As I said, if you actually read the post instead of ranting like a political broadcast by the B/S Party, you would see that I didn't advocate a coup as such, but was simply commenting on a book that was loaned to me which, in MY opinion (remember the "democracy" you seemed so keen to defend?) has some highly intriguing ideas.
No doubt you like to burn such books.
The British Armed forces are shrinking to the point where they are becoming unable to do their job. Too few of everything, and yet more cuts to come. This threatens the very existence of this nation should a serious crisis blow up (as history shows they often do). I suggest that YOU, not I, fit the bill of "traitor" (is that what you called me?) only you're probably too dumb to see it.
I love my country and it breaks my heart to see what you're apparent friends have done/continue to do to it.
As I said, if you actually read the post instead of ranting like a political broadcast by the B/S Party, you would see that I didn't advocate a coup as such, but was simply commenting on a book that was loaned to me which, in MY opinion (remember the "democracy" you seemed so keen to defend?) has some highly intriguing ideas.
No doubt you like to burn such books.
Stendec5,
Nothing ample about my 'posterior' thank you, but I'll thank you to mind your own goddamned business.
An 'odious system puppet?' If only you knew...
The British armed forces are NOT shrinking to the point at which they are becoming unable to do their job just because you say they are. As they are currently only deployed in one theatre to the tune of 4,000 personnel until the end of this year I hardly see that we have 'too few of everything.' WHAT do you want more military kit for?
As to threatening the very existence of this nation, how? That is total BS and you know it.
I said that anyone proposing treason is in my opinion a traitor.
How do you know who my 'apparent' friends are? How on earth do you know what my friends have done to this country? I see nothing wrong with this country and am not aware of any of my friends ruining it in any way.
I certainly do not like to burn books, as a Barrister I rather rely on them.
Bye.
Nothing ample about my 'posterior' thank you, but I'll thank you to mind your own goddamned business.
An 'odious system puppet?' If only you knew...
The British armed forces are NOT shrinking to the point at which they are becoming unable to do their job just because you say they are. As they are currently only deployed in one theatre to the tune of 4,000 personnel until the end of this year I hardly see that we have 'too few of everything.' WHAT do you want more military kit for?
As to threatening the very existence of this nation, how? That is total BS and you know it.
I said that anyone proposing treason is in my opinion a traitor.
How do you know who my 'apparent' friends are? How on earth do you know what my friends have done to this country? I see nothing wrong with this country and am not aware of any of my friends ruining it in any way.
I certainly do not like to burn books, as a Barrister I rather rely on them.
Bye.
Pr00ne said 'WHAT do you want more military kit for?'
Speaking as a UK citizen, I would like a long range Maritime Patrol Aircraft please.
The UK currently has nothing to provide fast, agile and semi-permanent long range ASW defence of our SSBN and new carriers which in my mind means an unacceptable risk to both the Strategic Deterrent and our nations aims of having a serious strike capability launched from the maritime environment.
I would like our country to have the ASuW ability to detect, identify and if necessary destroy threats to our interests coming from both blue water and the littoral in an acceptable time frame. I ask myself, just how would we cope with a 2nd Falklands invasion launched by Argentina?
I would like the ability for Defence to be able to support OGD's against a maritime terrorist threat to our island as well as bolstering the meagre assets of the Border Force Agency.
Finally, as a tertiary role, I would like to see the UK having the ability to offer SAR cover within our internationally obligated SAR region which extends out to 30 West as well as being able to provide the best possible service to those in need in a 'Piper Alpha' scenario.
I personnaly find it appaling that as an island race with international maritime obligations and 90% of our trade transported on the ocean, we do not have this capability. Events in the Southern Ocean merely add to my anger.
Does that answer your question?
Speaking as a UK citizen, I would like a long range Maritime Patrol Aircraft please.
The UK currently has nothing to provide fast, agile and semi-permanent long range ASW defence of our SSBN and new carriers which in my mind means an unacceptable risk to both the Strategic Deterrent and our nations aims of having a serious strike capability launched from the maritime environment.
I would like our country to have the ASuW ability to detect, identify and if necessary destroy threats to our interests coming from both blue water and the littoral in an acceptable time frame. I ask myself, just how would we cope with a 2nd Falklands invasion launched by Argentina?
I would like the ability for Defence to be able to support OGD's against a maritime terrorist threat to our island as well as bolstering the meagre assets of the Border Force Agency.
Finally, as a tertiary role, I would like to see the UK having the ability to offer SAR cover within our internationally obligated SAR region which extends out to 30 West as well as being able to provide the best possible service to those in need in a 'Piper Alpha' scenario.
I personnaly find it appaling that as an island race with international maritime obligations and 90% of our trade transported on the ocean, we do not have this capability. Events in the Southern Ocean merely add to my anger.
Does that answer your question?
Originally Posted by pr00ne
The British armed forces are NOT shrinking to the point at which they are becoming unable to do their job just because you say they are. As they are currently only deployed in one theatre to the tune of 4,000 personnel until the end of this year I hardly see that we have 'too few of everything.' WHAT do you want more military kit for?
Last edited by Easy Street; 21st Mar 2014 at 08:31.
As they are currently only deployed in one theatre to the tune of 4,000 personnel until the end of this year I hardly see that we have 'too few of everything.'
The British armed forces are NOT shrinking to the point at which they are becoming unable to do their job just because you say they are.
We seem to go round this buoy on a fairly regular basis. Those advocating the need for additional equipment and/or manpower often present logical and informed argument (Party Animal for example). However, if the UK were to procure such items then there is a simple choice:
a. Allocate more money for Defence, or
b. Reduce/delete an alternative capability
The reality is Joe Public is not clamoring for more money to be spent on Defence. Indeed, if anything, his expectation seems to be for less. The politician class are very good at reading the pulse of the Nation, as (with a few notable exceptions in history) they tend to follow public opinion, rather than shape it.
So that leave us with option B. SDSR15 is likely to play out with intense debate over the merits of our existing and planned ORBAT, so perhaps it would be useful for those posting who believe we should have more of X, to explain why they also think we should have less of Y.
a. Allocate more money for Defence, or
b. Reduce/delete an alternative capability
The reality is Joe Public is not clamoring for more money to be spent on Defence. Indeed, if anything, his expectation seems to be for less. The politician class are very good at reading the pulse of the Nation, as (with a few notable exceptions in history) they tend to follow public opinion, rather than shape it.
So that leave us with option B. SDSR15 is likely to play out with intense debate over the merits of our existing and planned ORBAT, so perhaps it would be useful for those posting who believe we should have more of X, to explain why they also think we should have less of Y.
Red Line,
You're correct in your statement that, to put it very bluntly, funding is dependent on political expediency and the desire to either be a 'force for good' or the desire to reduce the number of body bags coming home. Once we have achieved the former, the latter will be the inevitable corollary.
However, the desire for politicians to appear statesman-like will never diminish, and so the military will be deployed at every opportunity to support that aim. Buy with that responsibility must come resources. If there is little to no appetite to resource the military - all arms and services - so that it is capable of being that contingency force, then you need to add a third option to your list: do less.
Ever since the politicians have tried to run the military like a business, they have focused on the numbers and the bottom line. I accept that we, like all Depts should live within our means if we are to be a sustainable force, but maybe those means need to consider factors in addition to numbers on a spreadsheet such as the human element. You can have all the exquisite capabilities you want, but they will be ineffective unless they are appropriately manned.
Our bottom line is not found on a spreadsheet, it is our ability to generate operational capability and most importantly, to ensure that the same numbers of people and aircraft/ships/tanks come home as deploy. Only when that happens do the books balance in my eyes.
To hold a military as a contingent force, with large parts of it being held at readiness with an expectation that they can deploy and execute political direction at the drop of a hat is expensive. It requires a significant investment in training, logistics and human capital if you are not to burn through your people in one or 2 turns of the handle i.e. for it to be a sustainable capability. Those advocating a purely spreadsheet driven approach would do well to remember this in these uncertain times. After all, if you ask your household insurance company for a policy that covers a limited range of risks for a short period, you will then no doubt be surprised when the premium sky rockets when you change the policy to cover all risks and eventualities 24/7.
The politicians need to decide what policy they want and as well as being directed by public opinion must also inform it so that the masses actually understand the repercussions of their wishes. With regard to Defence, I'm sad to say they are not doing that very well at all, probably because there are now no votes in it and those body bags are thankfully getting fewer in number.
You're correct in your statement that, to put it very bluntly, funding is dependent on political expediency and the desire to either be a 'force for good' or the desire to reduce the number of body bags coming home. Once we have achieved the former, the latter will be the inevitable corollary.
However, the desire for politicians to appear statesman-like will never diminish, and so the military will be deployed at every opportunity to support that aim. Buy with that responsibility must come resources. If there is little to no appetite to resource the military - all arms and services - so that it is capable of being that contingency force, then you need to add a third option to your list: do less.
Ever since the politicians have tried to run the military like a business, they have focused on the numbers and the bottom line. I accept that we, like all Depts should live within our means if we are to be a sustainable force, but maybe those means need to consider factors in addition to numbers on a spreadsheet such as the human element. You can have all the exquisite capabilities you want, but they will be ineffective unless they are appropriately manned.
Our bottom line is not found on a spreadsheet, it is our ability to generate operational capability and most importantly, to ensure that the same numbers of people and aircraft/ships/tanks come home as deploy. Only when that happens do the books balance in my eyes.
To hold a military as a contingent force, with large parts of it being held at readiness with an expectation that they can deploy and execute political direction at the drop of a hat is expensive. It requires a significant investment in training, logistics and human capital if you are not to burn through your people in one or 2 turns of the handle i.e. for it to be a sustainable capability. Those advocating a purely spreadsheet driven approach would do well to remember this in these uncertain times. After all, if you ask your household insurance company for a policy that covers a limited range of risks for a short period, you will then no doubt be surprised when the premium sky rockets when you change the policy to cover all risks and eventualities 24/7.
The politicians need to decide what policy they want and as well as being directed by public opinion must also inform it so that the masses actually understand the repercussions of their wishes. With regard to Defence, I'm sad to say they are not doing that very well at all, probably because there are now no votes in it and those body bags are thankfully getting fewer in number.
Last edited by Melchett01; 21st Mar 2014 at 14:03.
I would say the problem is that SDRs or whatever the latest phrase is do not actually address the main problem; they are simply cost cutting exercises. Politicians of all colours have failed to match the 2 up. At one end of the scale we could adopt a defence policy akin to say Sweden or Switzerland or at the other we could get involved as the world's policemen. Unfortunately governments of all colours want the cost of the former with the influence of the other. It would of course help if we had a half decent procurement system.
I take your point Melchett, but the politicians decide how much they are prepared to pay for the insurance policy. When crises occur, then will then call the insurance company (the Military) and ask what can be done. Based on their premiums, the insurance company will explain the possible options from which the politicians choose.
You might think they will regret this in future, but the fact is that at the moment, the politicians are not prepared to pay more for their insurance policy.
Whether one likes it or not, our innate ability to deploy operational capability IS determined by the spreadsheet. It is naive to think otherwise.
BTW, a trip overseas that can "ensure that the same numbers of people and aircraft/ships/tanks come home as deploy" is called a Holiday, it's certainly not called an Operation.
You might think they will regret this in future, but the fact is that at the moment, the politicians are not prepared to pay more for their insurance policy.
Whether one likes it or not, our innate ability to deploy operational capability IS determined by the spreadsheet. It is naive to think otherwise.
BTW, a trip overseas that can "ensure that the same numbers of people and aircraft/ships/tanks come home as deploy" is called a Holiday, it's certainly not called an Operation.
the politicians decide how much they are prepared to pay for the insurance policy. When crises occur, then will then call the insurance company (the Military) and ask what can be done. Based on their premiums, the insurance company will explain the possible options from which the politicians choose.
Unfortunately the customer needs to be more intelligent in all this because the internal politics at his insurer doesn't actually result in an increased level of protection; it just fools him into thinking that he's getting what he wants. This has been the classic way of driving down the insurance premium (defence budget) but the quality of cover inevitably suffers.
I note that since the much-vaunted CSR the 3 single-service heads have maintained full staffs in Main Building and, at least in CAS' case, seem to spend more time there than they do at their Command HQs. To that extent, I'm not sure that the CSR is achieving its desired endstate of restricting the political-military interface to the CDS-Ops Dir-PJHQ axis...
Last edited by Easy Street; 21st Mar 2014 at 14:28.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"politicians decide how much they are prepared to pay"
And in 2010 they decided we could not afford fixed wing carrier aircraft for a decade and any LRMPA after having "wasted" funds on Nimrod.
We still have a large Defence Budget but unlike the case with say NHS spending, throwing money at something was deemed not to be the answer. That's the simple politics.
Post 2015 matters will not improve. Personally, I doubt we will run on Tornado once Typhoon is cleared to carry Storm Shadow. As for ditching early Tranche Typhoons, you can imagine the reaction from the Public to another waste of money. Much easier to get rid of another "old" type altogether as has often happened in the past few years.
And in 2010 they decided we could not afford fixed wing carrier aircraft for a decade and any LRMPA after having "wasted" funds on Nimrod.
We still have a large Defence Budget but unlike the case with say NHS spending, throwing money at something was deemed not to be the answer. That's the simple politics.
Post 2015 matters will not improve. Personally, I doubt we will run on Tornado once Typhoon is cleared to carry Storm Shadow. As for ditching early Tranche Typhoons, you can imagine the reaction from the Public to another waste of money. Much easier to get rid of another "old" type altogether as has often happened in the past few years.
Party Animal,
You of course are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and what you would like to see in the UK military, unfortunately when it comes to long range Maritime Patrol Aircraft, it would appear that the top brass in both the RAF and the RN disagree with you.
If they did agree with you, then I’m pretty sure that, out of the £63 billion allotted to defence purchases over the next 10 yrs ,plus another £13 billion for contingency purchases, they would have found the money!
I would imagine that we would cope a lot better this time around with an Argentine invasion (unlikely as that is) of the Falkands than we did in 1982!
As to you finding it personally appalling as regards our 90% of maritime trade, seeing as that comes in 100% foreign ships mainly owned and crewed by foreigners then I don’t see that the lack of a LRMPA increases our vulnerability one jot.
Easy Street,
Sorry if you think my points ‘cheap shots.’ I personally think that a Barrister possesses as much intellect as your average Taxi driver, and believe me I have NO beef against Taxi drivers!
Believe me when I say that I do not consider myself to inhabit any lofty perch.
As to scaling the armed forces according to the needs of current operations, where on earth did I suggest that? Less than 15% of the UK armed forces were deployed to Afghanistan and we have myriad capabilities and platforms that have not been deployed for a very long time, I am NOT suggesting that they be retired.
Roland Pulfrew,
You make a fair point re the 4,000. That was sloppy of me and of course does not take into account the other small scatterings in the Falklands, the Gulf, Kosovo and sundry other places. however, my main point remains, that we have only one significant combat deployment, of 4,000, and that comes to an end this year.
I still maintain that the UK armed forces CAN do their job, and seeing as we possess the 4th largest defence budget on the face of the planet, so they bloody well should! Is that money well spent? Is it well managed and husbanded? No, I don’t think it is but that is NO reason to spend more!
You of course are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and what you would like to see in the UK military, unfortunately when it comes to long range Maritime Patrol Aircraft, it would appear that the top brass in both the RAF and the RN disagree with you.
If they did agree with you, then I’m pretty sure that, out of the £63 billion allotted to defence purchases over the next 10 yrs ,plus another £13 billion for contingency purchases, they would have found the money!
I would imagine that we would cope a lot better this time around with an Argentine invasion (unlikely as that is) of the Falkands than we did in 1982!
As to you finding it personally appalling as regards our 90% of maritime trade, seeing as that comes in 100% foreign ships mainly owned and crewed by foreigners then I don’t see that the lack of a LRMPA increases our vulnerability one jot.
Easy Street,
Sorry if you think my points ‘cheap shots.’ I personally think that a Barrister possesses as much intellect as your average Taxi driver, and believe me I have NO beef against Taxi drivers!
Believe me when I say that I do not consider myself to inhabit any lofty perch.
As to scaling the armed forces according to the needs of current operations, where on earth did I suggest that? Less than 15% of the UK armed forces were deployed to Afghanistan and we have myriad capabilities and platforms that have not been deployed for a very long time, I am NOT suggesting that they be retired.
Roland Pulfrew,
You make a fair point re the 4,000. That was sloppy of me and of course does not take into account the other small scatterings in the Falklands, the Gulf, Kosovo and sundry other places. however, my main point remains, that we have only one significant combat deployment, of 4,000, and that comes to an end this year.
I still maintain that the UK armed forces CAN do their job, and seeing as we possess the 4th largest defence budget on the face of the planet, so they bloody well should! Is that money well spent? Is it well managed and husbanded? No, I don’t think it is but that is NO reason to spend more!
Originally Posted by pr00ne
As to scaling the armed forces according to the needs of current operations, where on earth did I suggest that?
Originally Posted by pr00ne
As they are currently only deployed in one theatre to the tune of 4,000 personnel until the end of this year I hardly see that we have 'too few of everything.'
Your later point - 4th-biggest defence budget, why spend more? - is one I agree with entirely, although I'd be interested to see whether other nations' nuclear deterrents sit on the headline defence budget. We and the French are also in hock to our own domestic defence monopolies who sell to us late and over budget, while militaries such as India, Saudi etc (and even, it seems, Russia - French ships) buy from the same companies at preferable terms due to the power of the export market. They have varying views on the value of attached to a life, so tend to have less of a safety, assurance and process overhead. And they're not all as fussed as Sir Humphrey about accounting for every last penny of government money, so can survive with small procurement and accounting arms. That's the way our money goes....
They have varying views on the value of attached to a life, so tend to have less of a safety, assurance and process overhead. And they're not all as fussed as Sir Humphrey about accounting for every last penny of government money, so can survive with small procurement and accounting arms. That's the way our money goes....
It is ironic that the most wasteful programme (RMPA/Nimrod 2000/Nimrod MRA4) failed because it did NOT adhere to “safety, assurance and process”.
If, in the early 90s, those responsible for oversight had adhered to Sir Humphrey’s regulations (in this case, those issued by PUS as Chief Accounting Officer), then it would indeed have been a “replacement”, instead of a modification of Nimrod.
Same applies to another money pit, Chinook HC Mk3.
Then look at the common denominators. THAT is where the problem lies.
It has been proven time and again how to deliver to time, cost and performance. It isn’t that MoD can’t do it. It is because they fear raising the bar so rail against those who do.
