Latest Rumours ...

[foxxhunter]

So far I've heard these ...

1. Reduction in personnel from current levels to somewhere between 33-38,000

2. Redundancies on offer for aircrew aged 30-38, circa £175k !

3. Falklands - no aircraft

4. 100 Sqn to close, or get Jags. Don't know which is worse!

5. Leeming and Colt to close.

6. Typhoon rumours various - all short of cancellation though.

Anyone got any more? Or can you shed any light on the ones above?

:mad:

[MrBernoulli]

"3. Falklands - no aircraft"

I somehow doubt it. Every time they have threatened or even hinted about withdrawing the VC10 tanker out of MPA, someone with a very important finger in the pie squashes it (the idea, not the pie). Somebody in the whole Falkland setup carries a lot of weight at ministerial level and manages to punch at a weight well above that which the Falklands' deserve!

So all the aircraft withdrawn? No chance!

[Archimedes]

I wonder why 100 Sqn would receive Jags when the other favourite rumour is for the entire Jag fleet to be binned? I'd have thought that contractorisation and use of a few of ze very jolie Alpha Jet (peut-etre) to fill the role would have been more likely- unless Jacko's comments about the platform have been taken on board and the Jag fleet is to expand ;)

Agree with Mr B that removing aircraft from Falklands is likely to be a non-starter.

Have heard again the interesting (and probably false) rumour about Typhoon - that we will get all 232, since we wrote the contract so tightly (to keep the Germans in) that we can't get out, and will instead sell some of the fleet to the Austrians, Greeks and possibly Saudis/Kuwaitis/Omanis (take your pick...) to recoup most of the cash shelled out for them.

[jack_k]

Hm
The problem with trying to sell some of our 232 is that BAe want to sell 232 to the RAF and lots of others to other nations.
If BAe do have a tightly drawn up contract then there may not be any chance of ditching the Typhoon numbers and the plan, according to them, will go as:
RAF buys 232
Austria orders and gets some of the airframes allocated to us
Tranche 2 and 3 are delayed to ensure that export customers get priority.
Possibly :confused:

[Jackonicko]

For a 137 frontline aircraft, seven squadron Typhoon fleet, plus in use reserves, to last the 25 years they are supposed to, you apparently need 232 aircraft. If we go down to six squadrons you could cut the total by 30 jets, or so (smaller training requirement etc.) but to trim many more, you'd be looking at a substantially smaller force or a shorter life. And our boxheaded chums definitely want all 180 of theirs, and may even exercise an option for a few more, so if we cut back, the penalties and workshare implications won't be nice.

[Mad_Mark]

MrBornugly,
Somebody in the whole Falkland setup carries a lot of weight at ministerial level and manages to punch at a weight well above that which the Falklands' deserve!
So, you think that a part of Britain that has been invaded within the past 25 years by a neighbour, and is still claimed by that neighbour as being their territory, does not DESERVE a couple of F3's and other support aircraft to protect it from any possible future threat? Right, best we move the whole RAF fleet to your nearest airfield so we can protect just you, as obviously no other Brittish citizen DESERVES our protection :mad:

I think those in the Falkland Islands are at more of a direct threat of military attack by a neighbour (however slim that threat may be right now, it still exists) than those of us at home back in dear old Blighty, and deserve our whole-hearted support.

MadMark!!! :mad:

[timex]

Somebody in the whole Falkland setup carries a lot of weight at ministerial level and manages to punch at a weight well above that which the Falklands' deserve!


Earth calling!! Fought for it once, don't want to repeat that one. Lets face it if you were going to try and grab the FI back, now would be a good time. HMF overstretch, World problems and IS probs at home..

[Colonel W E Kurtz]

This goverment does not give a **** about 2000 farmers on a heap of rocks. All they care about are the massive oil reserves down there.

Why don't you wake up and smell the coffee. The only reason we invaded iraq was because of the oil down there as well.
:mad:

[I_stood_in_the_door]

Col Kurtz,

Wheres the oil in Kosovo, gimp boy?

Surely we defended Iraq and the Falklands for a noble cause?

isitd

:}

[nimrodcatcher]

I've heard RAF to acquire Apache....and the pongos to get all the Rapier kit.

[Eight Eights Blue]

There is always one out there waiting for a bite and I am in just the mood.
RAF to acquire Apache - Me thinks not old boy.
The only way you will have Apache is if we all combine to make the Royal Sky Corps. Then and only then will the old RAF get their mits on it.
Then again before me jumps into the fire anything can happen nowadays.

[Hueymeister]

Dear Mr Para I stood in the door...my colonial cousin says there is oil in Kosovo..a huge pipeline..very important he says..and surprise, surprise if the largest camp Uncle Sam has is sat right on top of it!!!!!

Hopefully Col Kurtz isn't feeling too bruised!

TTFN

[ZH875]

RAF to get the Apache....


...If this is to be the case, how on earth do their Airships arrange to get a 5 star hotel near every Helipad in the battle area.

Think of the cost of training RAF Chopper Pilots to dig holes, fill sandbags and unroll sleeping bags.

Nope, it will never happen.

More chance of the Typhoon being in service on time.:p

[I_stood_in_the_door]

Huey,

One nil to you. However only goat herders and dead serbs on my last visit.

Heres a spoon to eat my ass.

isitd

:mad:

[pig fist]

Rumour in the HAS'es is that the Eurothingy moneypit (aka Typhoon) is having a few snags getting into service. Result more cash for F3's - more support for FI det. Having seen some of the flying they do down there (out of the prying eyes of UK NATS and co) why would they want to give up their 4 week jolly?
Anyone got a firm answer for the ISD for Typhooooooooon?

[polomint]

heard that when colt closes the jags are moving to 100 sqn and as for the typhoon they have done quite a few sorties recently.

[JagMate]

Please someone tell me about the £175K package to retire pre 38. Where do I sign.

[10forcash]

isitd,
The colonials in Kosovo do indeed have a very long lease on several bits of land, not oil though, there are lots of industrial minerals in the balkans many of which are pretty close to the surface (as the EOD teams found out on the dems. ranges)
Cheers,
10forcash

[moggie]

I've heard the Jags for Leeming story from a couple of sources of late - but no details as to who gets them (100Sqn or their present keepers relocating).

Last runour I heard on Leeming was closure 2009 when F3 finally bites the dust.

[HectorusRex]

From Daily Telegraph, Friday 2nd April

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/02/ncuts02.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/02/ixnewstop.html

Five RAF bases to close in £1bn cuts
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 02/04/2004)


The Ministry of Defence is planning the biggest cuts in Armed Forces' equipment for decades as part of attempts to save more than £1 billion from the defence budget.

Five RAF bases are to go, with the scrapping of all the RAF's 62 ground-attack Jaguars, all its 79 ground-attack GR7 Harriers and all its 39 Puma helicopters.

The Royal Navy will lose the two carriers Illustrious and Invincible, at least two frigates and its 88 Sea King helicopters, and close four naval storage bases.

The Army will have to close a number of camps on the Salisbury Plain training area and axe at least 50 Challenger 2 tanks, 50 Warrior armoured personnel carriers and all 118 of its Gazelle helicopters.

The cuts are so wide-reaching that ministers are planning to hold back the announcement of some until after a general election.

At least three Scottish infantry battalions are in danger of being amalgamated, a move that could spark a widespread defection of Labour voters north of the border to the Nationalists.

But the Government believes the suggestion by Oliver Letwin, shadow chancellor, that the Conservatives would cut the defence budget, now denied by the Tories, makes it impossible for them to challenge any cuts.

The Royal Scots and the Black Watch, two of the most famous Scottish regiments but both with recruiting problems, are most likely to go.

The overall cuts will lead to 2,000 officers being made redundant across all three services as well as a number of senior NCOs. The large-scale disposals come after the Treasury won its battle with the MoD over cash shortages caused by the adoption of a new accounting system, the cost of expensive new programmes and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Under the new Resource Account Budgeting system it costs government departments more money to keep open large numbers of bases.

Working groups within the MoD were told to find ways to save money from current equipment to protect projects such as the Navy's two new carriers and the RAF's Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft.

The RAF bases to close include Coltishall in Norfolk, which houses all the RAF's Jaguar ground-attack aircraft, Wittering in Cambridgeshire, home of Joint Force Harrier, and Benson in Oxfordshire.

Military commanders are furious at the long list.

Nicholas Soames, shadow defence secretary, accused the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, of planning "to wreak havoc on the Forces".

1 April 2004: Navy to 'lose two carriers' in cutbacks
31 March 2004: Cost of Iraq war leaves Forces facing cuts
28 March 2004: Ships in danger say Navy chiefs, as Sea Harriers are scrapped
6 January 2004: Warships are first casualty as spending cuts hit Navy


Previous story: Blunkett on the rack as minister quits over immigration 'cover-up'
Next story: Blair go-ahead for compulsory ID cards to beat terrorism

Related reports

Forces get ready to fight cutbacks


External links

Ministry of Defence

Royal Navy

HM Treasury

Black day for the Royal Navy [31 Mar '04] - Conservative Party


:mad:

[BEagle]

How could such lunacy ever be allowed?

If it's true, how many 'leaders' will resign in disgust.....

And we continue to waste millions on fraudulent immigrants and the decaying railway system.

Truly the old 'Ban the Bomb' lefty idiots are slowly getting their way.

[ShyTorque]

Beags,

I think there is little point in defending the country now as we have apparently already been invaded.

The only thing that won't be cut is the salary and pension increases of those at the top ordering the cuts. Next time you see Buff, ask him where he is going to retire to.....I'll bet it's not Nottingham. :\

[Hard Bernard]

Latest from The Herald (Glasgow paper) which suggests that there is a systematic outflow of information from Whitehall.


http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/13289.html


RAF to axe 50% of fast-jet student pilots

IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent April 02 2004



THE RAF is to axe up to 50% of this year's candidates for fast-jet pilot training as part of a cutback caused by the Ministry of Defence's cash crisis, sources said yesterday.
All 42 of the student pilots awaiting courses to qualify them for frontline squadrons have been called to a meeting at RAF Linton-on-Ouse in the Vale of York next Tuesday.
Sources say more than 20 will be offered the chance to transfer to helicopters, or transport aircraft training, "administrative" jobs or to take redundancy packages rather than going on to fly fighter or strike jets.
Those who opt for desk jobs are to be given 18 months' seniority, while those who decide to transfer will be "restreamed" for multi-engine flight training.
The move is seen by insiders as the first stage of a programme to cut RAF numbers by up to 25% and reduce the number of operational squadrons to save cash from the MoD's overstretched budget.
An MoD spokeswoman yesterday confirmed the intention to restrict training slots, but denied that the measure was cost-driven. It was a result of improved pass rates on previous courses and better pilot retention because of lack of higher paid civil aviation jobs.
"Undoubtedly, some of those who thought they would be flying fast jets will be disappointed. But this is a prudent manpower management review," she added. "Any suggestion that this is in any way an advance reaction to possible cutbacks in aircraft is pure speculation. No decisions have yet been taken."
The MoD is currently in negotiations to cancel a final batch of Typhoon Eurofighter jets and reduce the RAF's £50bn order from 232 to 143 aircraft.
The RAF already faces pressure to scrap some or all four of its Jaguar jet squadrons, close six bases and slash manpower by an initial 7000 as part of last year's announcement of plans for "leaner, meaner" armed forces.
Naval sources, meanwhile, say two of Britain's three aircraft carriers – Invincible and Illustrious – are also to be taken out of service and offered for sale to the highest bidder.
THE RAF is to axe up to 50% of this year's candidates for fast-jet pilot training as part of a cutback caused by the Ministry of Defence's cash crisis, sources said yesterday.
All 42 of the student pilots awaiting courses to qualify them for frontline squadrons have been called to a meeting at RAF Linton-on-Ouse in the Vale of York next Tuesday.
Sources say more than 20 will be offered the chance to transfer to helicopters, or transport aircraft training, "administrative" jobs or to take redundancy packages rather than going on to fly fighter or strike jets.
Those who opt for desk jobs are to be given 18 months' seniority, while those who decide to transfer will be "restreamed" for multi-engine flight training.
The move is seen by insiders as the first stage of a programme to cut RAF numbers by up to 25% and reduce the number of operational squadrons to save cash from the MoD's overstretched budget.
An MoD spokeswoman yesterday confirmed the intention to restrict training slots, but denied that the measure was cost-driven. It was a result of improved pass rates on previous courses and better pilot retention because of lack of higher paid civil aviation jobs.
"Undoubtedly, some of those who thought they would be flying fast jets will be disappointed. But this is a prudent manpower management review," she added. "Any suggestion that this is in any way an advance reaction to possible cutbacks in aircraft is pure speculation. No decisions have yet been taken."
The MoD is currently in negotiations to cancel a final batch of Typhoon Eurofighter jets and reduce the RAF's £50bn order from 232 to 143 aircraft.
The RAF already faces pressure to scrap some or all four of its Jaguar jet squadrons, close six bases and slash manpower by an initial 7000 as part of last year's announcement of plans for "leaner, meaner" armed forces.
Naval sources, meanwhile, say two of Britain's three aircraft carriers – Invincible and Illustrious – are also to be taken out of service and offered for sale to the highest bidder.
THE RAF is to axe up to 50% of this year's candidates for fast-jet pilot training as part of a cutback caused by the Ministry of Defence's cash crisis, sources said yesterday.
All 42 of the student pilots awaiting courses to qualify them for frontline squadrons have been called to a meeting at RAF Linton-on-Ouse in the Vale of York next Tuesday.
Sources say more than 20 will be offered the chance to transfer to helicopters, or transport aircraft training, "administrative" jobs or to take redundancy packages rather than going on to fly fighter or strike jets.
Those who opt for desk jobs are to be given 18 months' seniority, while those who decide to transfer will be "restreamed" for multi-engine flight training.
The move is seen by insiders as the first stage of a programme to cut RAF numbers by up to 25% and reduce the number of operational squadrons to save cash from the MoD's overstretched budget.
An MoD spokeswoman yesterday confirmed the intention to restrict training slots, but denied that the measure was cost-driven. It was a result of improved pass rates on previous courses and better pilot retention because of lack of higher paid civil aviation jobs.
"Undoubtedly, some of those who thought they would be flying fast jets will be disappointed. But this is a prudent manpower management review," she added. "Any suggestion that this is in any way an advance reaction to possible cutbacks in aircraft is pure speculation. No decisions have yet been taken."
The MoD is currently in negotiations to cancel a final batch of Typhoon Eurofighter jets and reduce the RAF's £50bn order from 232 to 143 aircraft.
The RAF already faces pressure to scrap some or all four of its Jaguar jet squadrons, close six bases and slash manpower by an initial 7000 as part of last year's announcement of plans for "leaner, meaner" armed forces.
Naval sources, meanwhile, say two of Britain's three aircraft carriers – Invincible and Illustrious – are also to be taken out of service and offered for sale to the highest bidder.

[soddim]

Expect to see Blair, Brown and Hoon worshipping at a mosque near you soon.

Well, they had better do some praying because they'll soon have no effective armed forces to defend them.

[henry crun]

It sounds like 1957 all over again.

[Gainesy]

Latest from The Herald (Glasgow paper) which suggests that there is a systematic outflow of information from Whitehall.

More like a systematic reading of these pages.

As to "leaders" (I note your use of quotation marks BEags) does the Service have any these days? As opposed to managers.

[Beeayeate]

Remind me again - just how much money has the MoD in general and the RAF in particular recently paid out to, eg, females who fall off their high heels and other, PC-related spongers?

Also, how much did the "gun/no gun" Typhoon fiasco cost? Nimrod wings saga? What, if any, recompense?

And again, reading the posts on this board, how much geld wasted over the past few years on "touchy feely" initiatives (like CD-ROMs for everybody). I don't profess to know all the "internalised" money wasting projects but the last RAF recruitment ad must have taken a fair wodge of geld.

The announcement this morning is nothing short of scandalous. :mad:

[Forgot]

Ladies and Gentlemen....

Look at the timing of these stories.

In the Budget, the real level of defence spending was guaranteed to 2007-08 -- in fact, Brown committed himself to an increase (not stated) -- but avowedly NOT money cuts.

Coincidentally, MOD sends a note to Tony asking for 1.2bn quid next year "because the government accounting system changed" and there was suddenly no money left. Oops! So how come every other department was able to change to the new system without rushing off for more dosh? Is it possible that MOD administration screwed up? :hmm:

And then there's the new equipment...... The SDR decided that each of the three services' favourite new toys were CRITICAL and therefore had to be acquired (Eurofighter, Apache, CV, Astute), along with lots of other elegant legacy systems (Brimstone, Storm Shadow, TRIGAT spring to mind) that are mind (and budget) blowingly expensive. As a result, it was always obivous that there was going to be a cash crunch between 2005-12 and everyone always knew about it -- so we're now into the middle of the decade and lo and behold, there's the funding shortfall. :rolleyes:

So, if the cunning MOD plan was to ignore this and then hope like hell the government would just cough up (and this is before the "issues" around Nimrod 2000 and Astute) then I really wonder what plan B is!

If it's simply to construct the worst possible scenarios for front line cuts, leak it to friendly jornos (Torygraph) and not address the way the MOD spends money..... then I can't see it working very well. I expect that their bluff will be called, some bases will close and consolidate and that (please God) the MOD actually begin to get their administrative act together to support the front line rather than the reverse.

Just my 0.02....

Forgot

[soddim]

Trouble is, Forgot, that once these people and capabilities have been cut, no level of MOD improvement will bring them back. The RAF appear to be losing much of its' most capable fast jet force before Typhoon is even cleared to drop or fire a weapon.

Even if one blames MOD for the budget problems that does not justify these cuts.

Any government that allows this to happen should resign in shame.

[steamchicken]

This whole resource-accounting lark, although being very free market, big business stuff and hence attractive to red meat chomping Tories and Treasury Devils (is there any difference?), is simply unsuited to the MoD, whose core business depends on huge stocks of kit that can by definition never produce a return - weapons destroy, after all - hence if you have a Treasury "cost of capital charge" of 6% on everything, it will be permanently shagged.

Simple solution - don't apply the new accounting book to the MoD. Crisis over. Back to your desks! Unfortunately, this would involve the "real, unchanging government" as James Meek called it in the Grauniad yesterday - the Treasury - admitting it was wrong. This has never happened in all of Britain's past history, and there is no reason for it to happen now.

[Archimedes]

You forget the retreat from the Gold Standard, Devaluation in 1949 and 1967 and the ERM.

The Treasury tried telling us it was right in all cases until it was manifestly obvious they were speaking through an orifice not normally employed for direct speech, whereupon a humiliating retreat followed.

A word in Gordon's ear from CDS (You do realise that we will be unable to deploy any forces to meet your foreign policy objectives when you become Prime Minister, don't you, Mr Brown?) might do the trick...

[steamchicken]

Oh, that wasn't OUR fault Prime Minister - it's you who can't keep the Spending Departments under control!/the Yanks and the conditions they put on the loan/the Germans for not doing what we wanted them to/somebody else!

PS, in my view going back onto the gold standard in 1925 was the worse mistake. And Winston Churchill made it all on his own against the mandarins' (and John Maynard Keynes') advice.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Perhaps a word from President Bush (Senior or Junior) would help.....

[Archimedes]

Yes, that's quite true - I used to use this when teaching a course on British politics as an example of how, sometimes, ministers were able to go against the advice of the Treasury, but that this one case had frightened the next three generations of Chancellors (or more) into doing everything they were told....

[Forgot]

Never thought that I get into this dicussion here, but here's where accouting becomes important. Resource Accounting is nothing more exotic than standard commercial accounting, in which you pay for something when you commit to it (rather than when the bill arrives) and you spread the cost of things over their useful life, rather than considering it all at once. What does this do? It forces decision makers to consider the long term impacts of their decisions, and helps them make beter ones.

Here's how. Let's assume that the RAF has a knackered fleet of jets. It has two choices: (a) do a big overhaul and mid-life update, giving 15 years more service or (b) buy new jet with 30 year life and lower direct operating costs. Now, let's assume that option (a) costs 2/3rds of (b). In the world of cash budgets, departments tended to select the lower cash cost -- despite the fact that it was poorer militarily and poorer value for money. Because the new accounting system makes you consider the whole cost of the programme, the decisionmaker would chose (b) -- because the better value would be clear from day one, not just later.

-- the cost of capital charge forces people to make choices about what they invest in and how. It is currently set at 3.5% (reduced from 6%) and budgets were increased to cover the capital charge a couple of years ago. Now, if departments are smarter about the amount of capital they use -- mostly land and buildings -- then money is released for other things. Again, all the incentives are there for MOD to concentrate on the front line rather than on the administration of the organisation. And that should include looking at the Group Structure, (required now?) the number of bases and their location (if 16AMB are in Colchester and Wattisham, why not stick transports at Woodbridge / Bentwaters) and the number of civilians / service personnel doing administration and what may politely be describes as "non-core activity"!

Does this demand a different set of leadership skills from yesterday -- yes. Is this a good thing -- absolutely, as it demonstrates efficiency and value for money to the taxpayers who fund this. And the climate is such that demonstrable efficiency is key. Does it mean that the overblown promises of kit in the SDR need looking at again? Yep! But is this a bad thing? No.

Forgot

[steamchicken]

Indeed. The problem is that the defence establishment will never be a commercial enterprise - it will always need a gigantic capital base, with the unusual feature that none of it makes money and most of it costs money when it's standing still. Trying to fund mission critical activities in government from efficiency gains is not historically a successful policy. You can hire offices from Regus when you want them - try outsourcing an army! If any of the current rumours is true, it would appear that the transitional cost is so damaging that the game is not worth the candle.

[Forgot]

Steamchicken

Yes..... but the whole point was that the capital intensity was recognised under the transition and MOD's budget increased to cover the capital charge. As a result, any benefits now are real; and don't forget that resource accounting was introduced on an all party basis -- it isn't going away. However, it may well be forcing a torch to be shone in all sorts of places that haven't be examined for ages -- all to the good.

Inasmuch as it forces us to think about the structure of the forces and slay some sacred cows (PMA, Groups, etc) -- so much the better!

Yours, aye

Forgot

[Pontius Navigator]

Forgot,
I went on a course to learn what you just said. It cost about £200 in T&S and probably £300 ahead. I had to wait a year and then got a course 6 months hence. I was lucky and got a cancellation.

Your two messages explain everything and the course explained nothing.

Thank you.

[Forgot]

PN--

Thank-you for your insights! Getting back to the impact of the said accounting faff, what would you change?

Forgot

[althenick]

RAF to get the Apache....

in the present climate it's too expensive - the Crabs would have to accept Army non-com pilots into their system and give them a commission. Which would bring the whole tone of the officers mess's down to rock - bottom and would raise the average IQ of the said mess's by 200%. then of course there's the increase in pay, the extra squadron personnel, and the freedoms which officers expect (Resigning with far more benefits than the non-coms)

Of course if the romour is true about Non-com pilots being introduced to the FAA and RAF things might change???

[Megaton]

Excellent explanation, Forgot. Can I get an exemption from ICSC now? Or will a note from my mum suffice?

[buoy15]

Take care chaps; you may have missed the thread
For "Foxhunter" read "Storyhunter"

"Love many, trust a few, always paddle your owm canoe"

[flyboy007]

If, we are so short of ?0„5?0„5, why then do we regularly send passenger jets to any number of locations around the globe, nowhere near to full. Or sending 200 seat passenger jets to an airport to pick up/drop off 5 or 6 people. Or spending ?0„5?0„5 on recruitment ads (of very dubious quality), when downsize seems to be the word of the month.Is this a cost cutting measure? Not likely. It is an example of the flagrant, everyday mis-management that cost us a fortune.
Why is it that in the military, the "top management" are people with no financial expertise, but have been in the service for a long time. In modern business management is made up of a combination of the more experienced, and the younger with fresh ideas and skills. I understand that the military cannot be run as a business in all aspects, but surely there is room for a little improvement on the current joke. It must be time for a "management" branch to be introduced to begin running things a little more like a company, manned by those who have the required, recognised skills in this area. That would leave those of us whose skills are on the flying, maintaining, etc side of things, to do what we are there for. eg. Fly, maintain etc.

What a rabble, I give up.

[insty66]

The last thing any military branch needs is more managers. That is not to say that people should not be given proper accountancy training (a good job for admin but not for Aircrew perhaps).
What we all need is more Leaders, people who will stand up and be counted, defending the needs of the military from the bean counters who can see no further than the next Budget.

[flyboy007]

Insty. That is essentially what I am trying to get at. Not more managers, but better qualified! And yes indeed; a few less "yes men" would not hurt at all.

[SirToppamHat]

Whilst we're on the subject of accounting practices, how about taking a look at the way Annularity affects the way that out managers do their work?

Annularity is, IMHO, a complete load of B@ll@cks.

My understanding of the way it works is that a 'manager' is given an annual budget which he/she then has to spend. Without going into too much detail, an underspend at the end of the year is a bad thing because the following year's budget will be similarly reduced by the bean counters. This leads to ridiculous situations where a manager feels the need to spend the cash, with appropriate justification of course, on things that sometimes don't make sense, instead of giving back the cash into central funds.

Good Managers that save money are punished by seeing their budgets reduce over time, whereas those who spend are rewarded by having their budgets maintained or even increased!

Even though I am part of the organisation, it is MY tax money that is being wasted, and I am not impressed!

[teeteringhead]

Sir T H
I absolutely could not agree more! Annularity makes no sense at all except to professional bean counters.

As the erstwhile holder of a large (£manyM) budget, the panic to spend at the end of the FY was as predictable as it was pathetic. The year revolved around the FOO (Forecast of Outturn), and inevitably meant cutting back on T&S in the summer (cos we thought we were going to overspend) and making token works services in panic spending spree in Feb and Mar (cos we thought we would underspend). Use it or lose it went the cry! What absolute bolleaux.

None of us runs our personal budget that way; just imagine: I want to go on holiday in June, but I can't spend January or February's pay on it! Even if I pay up front in March (for June holiday) bean counters would count it as June expenditure as that's when I got the benefit! And if I had any money in the bank at the end of March (unlikely!), then I'd be rewarded for my financial husbandry with a pay cut!!!

Seriously, are there any accountants out there who can explain the benefits of annularity? Particularly as I understand that the RNZAF, despite their many other problems, have abandoned annularity and work on a "rolling" 12 month budget period. Probably rather like we all do with our personal finances.........

[Army Mover]

Teetering Head,

I remember those days well. In the first few months after Xmas, everyone rushing around to see what was in the travel budget to see if any of the recce's or training ex that had been put off could now be afforded.

Funny thing, since I left, I noticed that many civilian companies operate in very similar ways to the MOD. We have budgets (I also control a + million pound budget), we plan, midway through the business year we have a look at where we are and re-forecast and at year end see what the damage is. The thing that we don't seem to have is the mid-budget crisis where everybody starts to think we're going to overspend and cancels everything for the next 6 months.

I wonder why the overspend anx is so prevalent in the forces ?