You hold the purse strings.

[Lee Jung]

Like many of the posters here I am only too willing to critisize the downsizing brought in to facilitate Scottish/Welsh Parliaments; Domes, Blunkett's child support, Brown's curiosly white skincare products, Prescott's motoring collection and Mrs Blair's dental bill.

So let's have some suggestions for making the defence budget stretch to meet the requirements.

Bigger budget or pulling out of Iraq are too easy and therefore banned.

LJ

[JessTheDog]

Don't invade countries in the search for non-existent WMD - that might save a few billion pounds.

[BEagle]

Sell all expensive MoD property in London and move all the occupants to Anglesey, Inverness and Saxa Vord.....

[Wappy Tupper]

Any new 'initiative' must be personally funded from the pocket of the proposer of said 'initiative'!

[heights good]

Get rid of a lot of senior officers and get them doing the job they are meant to do i.e. a Sqn Ldr in charge of a sqn, Wg Cdr in charge of a wing etc.

Stop politicians deciding on procurement i.e. Merlin (keep Wastelands open) let them decide how much to spend but let Top brass decide what is best for the forces not the Rt Hon Whoever.

Actually consult the people at the coalface not 3* types who really dont have an understanding of the day to day problems/running/manning/requirements etc.

Buy kit that will actually get used, why do aircrew get issued with porn star sunglasses, i have never seen anybody wear them.... ever!!!

Somebody at the top actually have the Balls to make a decision for the boys and not just to further their own career.

Make it mandatory for people taking up new posts to have a 6 month period of no major changes, therefore no re-inventing the wheel just to make a name for themselves then when it doesnt work changing it back just like their predecessor.

Defence ministers or PM's must have children serving in the armed forces. This should stop war mongering if the PM's own children were going to have lead thrown at them.

I think thats all............ for now anyway
:)

[Good Mickey]

Abolish 'inflight' rations!! I know that this would cause a revolution on the truckie fleet but would save more than just a few quid. I have personally seen a navigator eat 4 meals (good size meals at that) in a 7 hr period. :E

GM

ps I was gonna say 'get rid of UKMAMS' but I know how sensitive you mover chaps/chapesses are. ;)

[Mobile Muppet]

GM

Come on chap, we may not be loved by anyone but could you honestly see an ALM loading a flat floor load at stupid o'clock in some sh@thole when the rest of the crew poke off to the hotel (C17 boys excluded !)

My point though, I agree the best way to start to save cash is to restructure the number of our senior officers and sort out the procurement mess we have for starters.

MM

PS. Not a bite or an atempt to start a debate just a light hearted poke at our ALM chums.

[Good Mickey]

MM,

thanks for the bite, my first one of the year. For the record, I wouldn't get rid of MAMS - well, not the baldricks anyway.

GM

[Unmissable]

Heights good
Top suggestions and in my opinion quite reasonable and not barking.

I would also add:

Stream line Gps, STC and PTC into one unit. (after all the whole RAF will be less than the size of one Gp was when I joined.

Don't even think about carriers. They are pointless, expensive and vulnerable. If our jets using SS or simliar, can hit a 'hard' target with accuracy measured in metres, or better, at several hundred miles range, then it is likely that the 'enemy' can sink our most expensive defence asset ever with the same degree of ease.

Quit fooling ourselves that investing in an EU force is anything but wasted money trying to keep us 'on-side' with Germany and France when we won't accept the Euro.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

When the Timmys, VC-10s, Sentrys etc croak, which can't be too long now, get B-767s for the non tactical transport, tanking, AEW and possibly even maritime roles. Reducing the number of types would streamline the supply and eng sides of the operation, increase reliability, and give aircrew and groundcrew time on a type that doesn't belong in a museum.

Let Westland licence build Chinnys, (the Merlins were just a bad idea) and set them working on the SH replacement airframe.

Realise that selling off assets and contracting everything isn't a wise move in the long term.

Improve retention by replacing the ALM branch with uberhot hosties from Virgin and BA.

[Old Bus Driver]

Max

I suspect that by the time the TriStar, VC 10 and sentry fleets are retired then the B767 will also belong in a museum. Better to go for the most modern replacements possible - you can bet that the RAF will be operating them for a very very long time.

OBD

[BEagle]

Just what I was about to say, OBD!

B767 is becoming quite old now; Stonecipher has already said that the B7E7 is unsuitable as a tanker a/c 'due its configuration' (whatever that might mean)..... Which pretty well rules out anything Boeing.

Zero-lifed A310 MRTT plus a few A330 MRTT; A400M and C-17 is the way ahead. Even A310 AWACS, perhaps... And trade the C130s in as the C-17s and A400Ms ramp up. Nothing inherently wrong with the C130, VC10, TriStar etc - just anno domini!

As for the floating grey coffins - totally agree.

[Gainesy]

Understand that "leaner" equals more efficient in civvy biz but in the military it means overstretched at best and out-numbered at worst. Ask Custer.

Bin Trident, invest in a few more destroyers.

Ditto big carriers. Need something like the old Fearless class.

All army units to wear the same uniform; they can buy different head gear/ badges/stable-belts if they want to.

Stop creeping contractorisation, it is gangreneous.

Ditto PC/IIP bollocks.

[SirToppamHat]

Withdraw from NATO (and the EU).

[SteveStephens]

How about a centralised Research and Development Branch?

[Professor Plum]

Sell all those new comfy chairs that those peeps at whitehall sit on (sell them on ebay or something),

Then sack anyone at whitehall who uses more than their quota of sick leave

[heights good]

Just thought of something else. Senior officers cant serve in any capacity on the board of or own shares in any company that has links to defence sales i.e. Wastelands. This should hopefully stop stupid procurements like Merlin/Lynx/Carriers/Typhoon etc. etc. etc.

Im sure ill think of more:)

[lineslime]

Don't implement change when a system is working perfectly well, or is that just asking too much?

[Tourist]

Ok, I'll Bite

Instead of chopping the carriers, lets chop the RAF in its totality.

We all seem to be operating under the assumption that we will always operate with the Yanks, so what does/can the RAF do that in any way enhances what they do. They have significantly better kit in all areas that the RAF operates, and more of it.

Now look at the RN.

On Day 1 in Iraq, the Junglies (who operate from carriers a lot!) carried the entire Royal Marine force into combat after the US had a tragic accident and ceased operations because didnt have the kit or training for the extreme environmental conditions.

At least the RN brings something credible and useful to the coalition table.

Tornado, Jaguar, Harrier versus B52, B1B, Hornet, Eagle, A10.........dont make me laugh

[opso]

Don't implement change when a system is working perfectly well, or is that just asking too much? I'm impressed with the optimism that believes that we have any systems that work 'perfectly well'. I have seen some systems that work 'well', plenty that work 'adequately', lots that work 'barely' and, increasingly, those that are on the downward spiral to 'to a standstill'!

[serf]

Streamlining your middle rank structure could save a few bob.

Does a FJ Sqn really need 6 Sqn Ldrs ? - I understand that the one with the most manpower under command is the SEngo, do you really need another 5.

[lineslime]

opso

If you refer to the "Centralised engineering at Lyneham" string you will understand what I mean. The old system, before we went "lean" appeared to work. I don't know how much it cost to attempt to re-invent the wheel but it wasn't money well spent.

[opso]

That was perfect?!:confused:

Engineering to task not offer. Insufficient spares forcing Christmas treeing. Fleets within fleets. Having a major contractor that can return an aircraft from major or mods as late as they like. All this resulting in such poor serviceability that frame allocation to task is a constant fire-fighting exercise at the eleventh hour. An unacceptably low record of getting aircraft to depart home base within even 6 hrs of itinerary.

That was a system that was working 'perfectly' well? That's more of the working 'adequately' category if our standards are low or, if one is more honest, 'barely' working.

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that the new system is better, that it doesn't need reviewing, nor am I pointing the finger at individuals or trades. What I am saying is that the system wasn't perfect any more than any other part of the Service is. Advocating we 'do nothing' should not be acceptable to any of us as we should all be striving to examine the system to improve our performance. 'The best we can do' isn't enough if the system is holding us back and we could do better. And there are precious few areas where we couldn't do better.

Anyway, just because something is working today doesn't mean that the same thing will be working tomorrow. The Titanic wasn't sinking until after it hit the iceberg. Looking forward to the problem and changing the course earlier would have saved it, even if it resulted in some spilled drinks amongst the first class passengers. And that is roughly what Lyneham is trying to do... (But that's all on another thread.)

[Fg Off Max Stout]

I can nominate a couple of SH Sqn Ldrs for redundancy if that helps.

[lineslime]

Point taken, i'm not saying the old system was perfect but from a 1st line point of view we on the ground could work it. I don't think anyone will come up a perfect system of operating unless time is spent listening to those with the hands on experience, and to the experiences of others who have attempted a similar system to implemented. It may save money in the long run.

On the contractor side of things don't the MoD have a late delivery penalty clause written into any contracts? If not, why not?

[truckiebloke]

no one mentioned hoon yet??

[rivetjoint]

Instead of chopping the carriers, lets chop the RAF in its totality.

We all seem to be operating under the assumption that we will always operate with the Yanks, so what does/can the RAF do that in any way enhances what they do. They have significantly better kit in all areas that the RAF operates, and more of it.


Perhaps what you meant to say was "Less of the areas we don't need when we go to war with the US"? There are some parts of the RAF the US almost depends upon before they can go into a large war.

If we're that desperate for money maybe we could reduce the 42 uniform variations the Navy has to something more practical like one for everyday of the week?

[JessTheDog]

Let's make the Dear Leader pay for his own jollies rather than abusing the Queens' Flight in what one of the crew has described as a "junket"!

[tucumseh]

An interesting question, rendered academic by the unwillingness of senior staffs and politicians to address it.

One MoD line may be that it has a scheme, currently called “GEMS”, which ostensibly rewards such ideas. This is true. However, the golden rule is don’t try to save too much as the idea will be ditched like a political hot potato. The scheme does not allow suggestions that challenge “policy”. Nor can one submit a suggestion that is deemed within your own job description. So, for example, this would preclude a project manager from suggesting a change to project management procedures, even though proven to save tens/hundreds of millions, and which would benefit other projects. This principle has been upheld many times, both in DLO and DPA (and their predecessors), and up to and including PUS.

I could make hundreds of suggestions but the most obvious one (to me) in recent years is the plethora of consultants employed by the MoD to consider topics which are complete no-brainers to 3rd year apprentices (not that there are many of them nowadays, which is half the problem). £350M in 2002, according to the NAO. Invariably, after many months on £1000 a day, their reports (a) recommend further studies or (b) make a recommendation which is actually long standing mandated policy, but the MoD customer is too inexperienced to realise it. And I can assure you the consultants deliberately target projects where the “external assistance” project officer is a young, inexperienced graduate. (So would you, in their shoes). They run a mile when confronted by experience.

As an aside, herein lies a significant financial problem project managers face. Very often he will be denied £millions because he has experienced staffs that don’t need consultancy support, and so cannot justify bidding for the money. Then, after their 2 year tour is up (no such thing as cradle to grave now), it’s all change and suddenly the “saved” millions are required again as the replacements are young graduates. Something must give, and the user finds he’s suddenly got a cheapo system, or no spares, or no training etc. You don’t get much consultancy for £2M, but it buys a lot of what you really need.

[opso]

Given that the military has been in a constant state of change for the past 15 years, what we really need is the people initiating and implementing changes to have a better grasp of change management techniques. Lineslime's point about involving those with the hands on experience has validity. Stakeholder involvement and better communication in the local area would go a long way to easing the problems inherent with the introduction of many of the measures that have been/are/will be thrust upon us all. That said, stakeholders such as a random chief on 1st line, cannot realistically expect that simply because he has what he considers to be the perfect solution (ie do nothing!) that it will meet the wider needs. To use the Titanic analogy again, the people with hands on experience were so busy stoking the furnaces to keep the engines running at full speed that they had no chance of seeing the iceberg, nor were they in a position to have a window out on to the impending problem.

And as for savings - do away with Gps in the RAF. The few useful functions within the HQs could be absorbed within STC or the stns, whichever is most efficient on a case by case basis. The remaining bits that exist only to support the Gps can then be ditched at considerable saving.