Forces braced for more cuts .....
RAF contribution to Defence - maximising return on public investment
I don't often go on the RAF website, but have just noticed this as one of the 3 elements that make up the RAF's contribution to Defence's vision. Really? Seriously?
Looks like Wyler's comments were more accurate than any of us might wish. What next, shareholder meetings, a stock market listing, CAS fired for failing to generate a return on capital employed in excess of 10%? And I only pick that specific number as the city maverick Terry Smith describes any company with a return of less than 10% as destroying investor value. If it's listed as part of the RAF's contribution to defence of the nation then do we need to start measuring it?
I'm very much for financial responsibility and abhor waste and frivolous spending, but when a fighting force lists maximising return on investments as a primary element of how it delivers security to the nation, something is very very wrong in the conceptual component.
Looks like Wyler's comments were more accurate than any of us might wish. What next, shareholder meetings, a stock market listing, CAS fired for failing to generate a return on capital employed in excess of 10%? And I only pick that specific number as the city maverick Terry Smith describes any company with a return of less than 10% as destroying investor value. If it's listed as part of the RAF's contribution to defence of the nation then do we need to start measuring it?
I'm very much for financial responsibility and abhor waste and frivolous spending, but when a fighting force lists maximising return on investments as a primary element of how it delivers security to the nation, something is very very wrong in the conceptual component.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett, agree. However, can you blame the RAF's public website for stating what many taxpayers seem to constantly bemoan in this day and age? Gone are the days where Defence is given their annual stipend from the Treasury and left to manage it. Perhaps we can blame modern society, whereby every armchair critic is seemingly entitled to constant online appeasement.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another £500m under threat...
Snip:-
Snip:-
The Royal Navy is scrambling to save an extra £500 million over the next two months after wasting money on ships it did not need because of a bungled procurement deal.
Contracts with BAE Systems for five offshore patrol vessels are the legacy of poor negotiations by the Ministry of Defence and mean that navy chiefs must find new savings to balance the books, defence sources said.
Options include cutting the size of the Royal Marines, mothballing one of two new aircraft carriers and even asking the army to pay for “soldier-like” jobs performed by marines, such as guarding naval sites.
A failure to meet the £500 million shortfall in the annual budget will mean that the army, Royal Air Force and Joint Forces Command, a relatively new branch of the armed forces, will be asked to bail the navy out.
Contracts with BAE Systems for five offshore patrol vessels are the legacy of poor negotiations by the Ministry of Defence and mean that navy chiefs must find new savings to balance the books, defence sources said.
Options include cutting the size of the Royal Marines, mothballing one of two new aircraft carriers and even asking the army to pay for “soldier-like” jobs performed by marines, such as guarding naval sites.
A failure to meet the £500 million shortfall in the annual budget will mean that the army, Royal Air Force and Joint Forces Command, a relatively new branch of the armed forces, will be asked to bail the navy out.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
A failure to meet the £500 million shortfall in the annual budget will mean that the army, Royal Air Force and Joint Forces Command, a relatively new branch of the armed forces, will be asked to bail the navy out
CPL Clott
And tucked away later on in the same Times article
So, back to my question about why the Services, and more to the point we on the front line, have to include financial responsibility as part of our contribution to Defence when there is a rather strong whiff of politics involved in the shortage of cash in front line units.
Three of the five offshore patrol vessels were ordered in 2014, with an updated order last year, because the MoD is committed to spending £230 million a year on protecting shipbuilding capability by helping BAE Systems keep shipyards in Scotland open regardless whether ships are built.
There's less of a whiff of politics than you might think. The ToBA was intended to maintain an onshore ship design and build capability. That it happens to be in Scotland - specifically the Clyde - is more an accident of history than deliberate politicking. In any case, the contractual imperative to buy the OPV is partly due to the failure to order T26 - some of which is down to the inability of service staff to make decisions, rather than the CS blamestorm implied in the Times article. What is really driving this is - of course - the near years budget profile in the SDSR15 settlement, rather than any contractual failure.
This is just another round of ABC jockeying / preparation.
This is just another round of ABC jockeying / preparation.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 59°09N 002°38W (IATA: SOY, ICAO: EGER)
Age: 80
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear that there is a shortage of personnel at Lossiemouth
I wonder if my 12 years service (1961-73) would make me eligible? I suspect that my age (73) would be against me
RAF Lossiemouth has been selected as a trial unit for a new ‘Base Support Group’ concept, which is being developed as a means where ex-RAF personnel can remain involved in the service.
Is this a re-invention of the General Duties Flight?
Wonder what appetite there will be for barbed wiring parties and the like?
Wonder what appetite there will be for barbed wiring parties and the like?
Looks like Wyler's comments were more accurate than any of us might wish. What next, shareholder meetings, a stock market listing, CAS fired for failing to generate a return on capital employed in excess of 10%? And I only pick that specific number as the city maverick Terry Smith describes any company with a return of less than 10% as destroying investor value. If it's listed as part of the RAF's contribution to defence of the nation then do we need to start measuring it?
So does this mean that if the RAF continues to lose money someone could be brought in from abroad, another company... say Deutsche Telecom or something... or just a more successful business, say BT or Yodel to replace the Sir Stephen Hillier, for example?
FB
I thought I read somewhere that FTRS personnel don't count towards the manpower ceiling.
So if the RAF is limited to say 31,000, then you could have an actual strength of 35,000 if you have 4,000 FTRS.
No doubt someone better informed will correct his statement shortly!!
So if the RAF is limited to say 31,000, then you could have an actual strength of 35,000 if you have 4,000 FTRS.
No doubt someone better informed will correct his statement shortly!!
On 1 Apr 15 there were 690 FTRS(FC/LC/HC) personnel. Source page 8 https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...PR_Apr2015.pdf
no more than an extra 150-200 generated since then.
no more than an extra 150-200 generated since then.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Army fights for future as pledge on troop numbers is abandoned
Officers are preparing to reduce the size of the army to as little as 65,000 after the Conservatives dropped a pledge to maintain the force at its target of 82,000, The Times understands. Options being considered within the military include reducing the army by 17,000 personnel to less than two thirds of the size of the French army and only slightly bigger than Germany’s land force, according to two defence sources. A third source said that “contingency plans” were being prepared in case the army was cut to 60,000 or 70,000. Officials were even asked this year to consider the implications of a full-time army of as few as 55,000, although officers believe this is unlikely.
A reduction of at least 2,000 personnel is almost inevitable as military chiefs and civil servants grapple with a funding hole in the defence budget of at least £10 billion over ten years........
A Conservative pledge to retain an army of at least 82,000 is absent from Theresa May’s manifesto. Instead the Tories broadly commit to maintaining “the overall size of the armed forces”. This means that a reduction in soldiers could be offset by an increase in the navy and RAF, which are struggling to man ships and aircraft. A Whitehall source said that such a calculation “is too simple a way of thinking”. Money saved within the army budget should be ploughed back into the army, he said......
“They are having to think the unthinkable,” a defence source said about the ideas being floated among officials to balance the budget. “Options are being socialised — they are socialised, informally briefed, written down and then formally briefed,” he said. Small teams have been told to prepare to work with the Cabinet Office on any post-election defence review, described as likely to be a “new chapter” to the last strategic defence and security review, conducted in 2015.
The political imperative to retain the army at a certain size on paper had become a shackle because there was insufficient money to equip and support a force of 82,000, sources said. Certain jobs in the logistics chain could be contracted out to the private sector, reducing manpower without affecting fighting capability and more use could also be made of the Army Reserve, they said........
An MoD spokesman said: “There are no plans to reduce the size of the armed forces.”
Officers are preparing to reduce the size of the army to as little as 65,000 after the Conservatives dropped a pledge to maintain the force at its target of 82,000, The Times understands. Options being considered within the military include reducing the army by 17,000 personnel to less than two thirds of the size of the French army and only slightly bigger than Germany’s land force, according to two defence sources. A third source said that “contingency plans” were being prepared in case the army was cut to 60,000 or 70,000. Officials were even asked this year to consider the implications of a full-time army of as few as 55,000, although officers believe this is unlikely.
A reduction of at least 2,000 personnel is almost inevitable as military chiefs and civil servants grapple with a funding hole in the defence budget of at least £10 billion over ten years........
A Conservative pledge to retain an army of at least 82,000 is absent from Theresa May’s manifesto. Instead the Tories broadly commit to maintaining “the overall size of the armed forces”. This means that a reduction in soldiers could be offset by an increase in the navy and RAF, which are struggling to man ships and aircraft. A Whitehall source said that such a calculation “is too simple a way of thinking”. Money saved within the army budget should be ploughed back into the army, he said......
“They are having to think the unthinkable,” a defence source said about the ideas being floated among officials to balance the budget. “Options are being socialised — they are socialised, informally briefed, written down and then formally briefed,” he said. Small teams have been told to prepare to work with the Cabinet Office on any post-election defence review, described as likely to be a “new chapter” to the last strategic defence and security review, conducted in 2015.
The political imperative to retain the army at a certain size on paper had become a shackle because there was insufficient money to equip and support a force of 82,000, sources said. Certain jobs in the logistics chain could be contracted out to the private sector, reducing manpower without affecting fighting capability and more use could also be made of the Army Reserve, they said........
An MoD spokesman said: “There are no plans to reduce the size of the armed forces.”
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I heard Corbyn say we need more . . .
Very true, he just didn't say he would.
Very true, he just didn't say he would.