Originally Posted by
Heathrow Harry
Let's think what COULD be done to save costs - not for one moment do I think this is good, wise or preferable but it may be necessary:-
(I expect to be trashed - fair enough -but if you disagree please let's see
your suggestions as to where the cuts should fall rather than just sticking our fingers in our collective ears and saying it can't/won't shouldn't happen))
1. Complete both carriers but immediatly sell/mothball one - be like the French with only one carrier.
2. Cut the number of F-35's accordingly and slow the delivery of the others - purchase and/or upgrade more Typhoons
3. Extend the Trident submarines for a few years - the USN boats aren't being replaced as soon as ours
4. Cancel any development of a new MBT and the Mechanised Infantry vehicle and buy German or American when/if we need them
5. Accelerate the sale of MoD property - maybe using an incentivised private partner
6. Slow the deliveries of P-8 - we've managed for several years with no Marine Patrol Aircarft - 5 would be better than none - the ordered 9 would be better still but the optional total of 32.............................
7. Amalgamate more Army units to get them to workable size -
8. Pull out of Bahrain, Kenya & Cyprus
9. Drastically reduce the number of SO's, HQ's Whitehall staffs - we should benchmark our senior staffing to that of other countries (Israel for example)
I'm sure everyone will have other ideas as to where the cuts could come............... It would be great if there was an INCREASE in spend but reallistically I don't think we have a cat-in-hells chance
PS I've just re-read the National Audit Office Report
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-eq...lan-2016-2026/ - we were already looking at future cuts - they're just going to be worse now
These seem to be good ideas, but...the Typhoon is, at best, a 4th generation platform (and a very good one) but unless we invest in 5th Generation, we will be left behind. Additionally, UK plc has a lot of spin-off programmes from F-35 becasue of our current positioning int eh programme.
Carrier - one carrier masively reduces capability as with two, it would be possible always to have one available for deployment. One will always have refit and training periods. Fact.
Trident. Hmm, in spite of continuous development, the components and design are, still, from the mid 1980s. Fancy computing on Compaq 8086 pc?
P8 - will give a huge boost in all-environments ISTAR.
MBT - are we still investing in dinosaurs? AFVs - we have a huge defence industry that needs continuous government pump-priming into R&D to remain ahead of the game and thus export more defence equipment (= propserity, more jobs...)
Amalgamate Army units? I agree but it's been done...and will lead to more pointless inflighting in the army over cap-badges.
Pull out from Bahrein and Cyprus? Arguably the treasonous decision ot withdraw East of Suez provided a power vacum in the Gulf - which we still feel teh effects from. And our presence in the Gulf is inexorably linked to wider Governmetn interests.
How can you benchmark Israel's strategic position with that of the UK? Didn't realise Israel was part of NATO? And as anyone who has been in MB recently, the headcount continues to fall.
In sum, most of these issues are about 'Where does Britain stand in the world'? We are still a leading economy, massive defence exporter, still a member of the P5, still a founding member of NATO, still with huge Imperial legacies (which, by and large, are positively influential), and remain a global 'brand'. The fact is we have to back up this stance with raw fire power. That means modern, capable, deployable forces. And that comes at a cost.
What is our alternative? Adopt a Scandinavian model and hug people more (not that the Norwegians in Syria have been doing much hugging of IS recently...quite the opposite)?