Underfunded or not getting value for money?

[Jetex Jim]

Given the traditional grumbling about downsizing and budgets it is interesting to do an (open source) comparison between the RAF and the Spanish Air Force.

According to the CIA Worldfactbook
Britain has a GDP of $2.147 trillion and spends 2.4 % on defence- $51 billion.
Spain has a GDP of $1.362 trillion and spends 1.2% on defence- $16 billion

The RAF, according to Wiki operates 850 aircraft, Spain 620.

Out of these, Spain has some fairly decent aircraft, F16, F18. Harriers with Typhoon on order. It also fields Maritime patrol aircraft, Tankers and various rotorcraft.

European airforces are sharing facilities with civil and going to the States to do a lot of flight training. UK operates a more of its own dedicated facilities, is this extravagant?

[dallas]

The principle difference seems to be the RAF's primary role in propping up British industry, whereas the Spanish would appear to be more concerned with stuff like defence; the Spanish equip their forces with off-the-shelf kit - the British normally get around to equipping our forces at some point or another, but it's more of a niggling secondary concern.

[Not_a_boffin]

Anybody actually believe the 850 a/c bit? Or are the grobs part of the AE now?

[Spanish Waltzer]

I feel dallas has hit the nail on the head - how many of my country's inventory - and not just its air force are home built items? It's not rocket science to apprecite that a huge proportion of the costs of any new bit of kit go on research, development, testing and production. In the UK rightly or wrongly the govt sees it necessary to assist the british economy by buying british. I suppose if the UK bought off the shelf and saved money in that dept they would then spend more money providing benefits to all the laid off defence industry workers.:rolleyes:

[Wrathmonk]

I'm sure if all we were doing was exercise after exercise we would be in a far better position. The treasury "war fighting" fund does not pay for everything that is going on in Iraq of Afg. Doesn't matter how much money you throw at a problem if you are flying the aircraft at a higher rate than you can (deep) service them, or indeed thought you were going to fly them when you first bought them, then you have a big problem.

I will no doubt be corrected but when was the last time the MOD bought an aircraft that solely benefitted UK industry and no one else? Hawk 128 perhaps? Tornado F3 perhaps? GR1/4, Typhoon, A400M all European consortiums. FSTA - No? C17 - No? C130 - No (although, granted a lot of the follow on work is here). Tristar - isn't the deep maintenance done overseas? Buying off the shelf may seem a good idea - but what standard are you really getting? What capability are they compared to the USAF/USMC fleets? Do you really think the Americans sell the other nations the top of the line platform with all the bells and whistles on? You never know who your next enemy will be! I'm still not convinced we are going to get the same JCA as the Americans ....:E

[Uncle Ginsters]

There will always be those traditional gripes, but before we (in a big collective way) can truly argue, we must be sure that everything that we are given is used to its fullest.

- How much money is wasted in procurement simply to buy British? Look at the whole C17 project for a lead on how it should be done.

- How much money is wasted on high-payed help travelling business class needlessly?

- How much money is wasted in designing tacky RAF logos that actually do nothing (a city Branding firm allegedly charged a six-figure sum for that!)

The list is endless, and it's usually those at the coalface who put up with continual cuts in their quality of life to fund this wastage.

How many times do you hear "oh, that comes from another budget so it's ok"?? Isn't it all one, big Defence spend in the long run?

Sorry to rant but....

Uncle G:ok:

[Wrathmonk]

Uncle

True. And you could also add (and I've deliberately put wasted in inverted commas to keep the wolves at bay!) ....

- How much is "wasted" paying CEA to individuals who haven't moved, or are unlikely to move, because of the fleet they belong to....

- How much is "wasted" paying home to duty to those who, by choice, live away from their parent unit....

- How much is "wasted" in rent allowance and food charges for those living in flats in London and Bristol rather than keeping sufficient mess accomodation available....

- How much is "wasted" paying aircrew flying pay who are never going to see the inside of a cockpit (and are generally in jobs that don't require their "specialist" background to fill)....

Sadly they effectively do all come from different votes. If we expanded the arguement a stage further and said rather than a RAF budget how about one big defence budget how much more would we lose when up against the Army? JHC is a good (or bad) example ....

[Uncle Ginsters]

Wrathmonk, agreed, but no need for the inverted commas methinks:

waste verb, wast•ed, wast•ing, noun, adjective –verb (used with object)
1. to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.
2. to fail or neglect to use: to waste an opportunity.
–verb (used without object)
7. to be consumed, spent, or employed uselessly or without giving full value or being fully utilized or appreciated.
8. to become gradually consumed, used up, or worn away: A candle wastes in burning.
10. to diminish gradually; dwindle, as wealth, power, etc.: The might of England is wasting.
–noun
12. useless consumption or expenditure; use without adequate return; an act or instance of wasting: The project was a waste of material, money, time, and energy.
13. neglect, instead of use: waste of opportunity.
14. gradual destruction, impairment, or decay: the waste and repair of bodily tissue.
17. anything unused, unproductive, or not properly utilized.

—Synonyms 1. misspend, dissipate, fritter away, expend.
—Antonyms 1. save.


:)

[Squirrel 41]

So if the answer is "No", (and we're all more or less agreed on that), let's be positive and offer suggestions for reallocating the existing spending.

Note to Main Building / Treasury: this is about reallocation of existing funding, not savings.

So, Ladies and Gents: pls set out what you can save and where you'd spend.

Starter for 10:

Scrap Trident replacement and spend £20bn on funding FRES (£15bn) and purchasing additional C-17s and A330Ks.

S41

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Lads, try not to confuse the Front Line Commands' Budgets (leaving aside the Joint stuff) with DE&S's Material Budget. The latter is, effectively, "one big Defence spend". In name, DE&S has Chiefs of Material (Fleet), (Land) and (Air) but their power and usefulness to their respective Services is limited. All the real money is under the Chief Operating Officer through his IPTs. That money moves around in year between Platforms and equipments, which was the original intention. The only other "Chief" with any power is Director General Joint Supply Chain (not under the COO) and, as you may guess from the title, has no Single Service commitment nor loyalty.

Bear in mind that if we did elect to become Third World and bought everything from the Developed World, the "saving" would not necessarily stay in Defence. For the same capability, it would be classed as negative inflation and, just as the Treasury grudgingly allows additions for positive inflation, they would just as easily remove any excess.

[The Real Slim Shady]

The RAF, and the rest of the military, can never be efficient because it works for diverse political masters. Too much time, money and effort spent placating them and not enough on letting the pro's run the show.

Until CAS is the equivalent of the CEO and can make decisions, not just have the baseball bat shoved up his ****, you will always have serious difficulties.

[wokawoka]

What about Merlin? Wasn't that propping Westlands,Instead of buying more Chinooks?
Buying APache from Westlands instead of Boeing and paying 3 times the price?
What about Lynx and future lynx instead of buying Blackhawk?

This is propping Brit economy.

[GPMG]

SA80 not M16 or Colt Commando
Cost of making the SA80 work after it had been 'tested' in the field and found wanting.

Phantom and those wonderful engines?

Nimrod.....

Am I correct in saying saying that the Harrier and the Hawk were the last in house designs that were at the forefront of world technology and were thus good exports?

[Wrathmonk]

Soz Woka - you have a very fair and valid point. I was being a bit Torpy-centric. And if we're going to include Army stuff then there is lots of kit that has benefitted purely UK. But the original poster was comparing Air Forces.

So far then we're agreed that a trg jet and a 40+ yr old jump jet was the last to be solely British. And it could be argued that both of those designs were taken by the Americans and made better! I'm not forgetting Nimrod but that could (may) be the thing that destroys whats left of the British Aviation industry. ;)

[Evalu8ter]

Woka is absolutely correct;

The 1995 decision to buy the Merlin over a pure Chinook buy was 100% politically inspired. Having talked to a large number of guys who were in OR etc in the mid 90s the OA screamed "Chinook" and Boeing had a yawning gap on the line in Philly. Every time the proposal for 40+ extra Chinooks (Just think about it...) went from the Military to the Political domain it was rejected with a "must feature Merlin.." comment. The eventual buy of 22 Merlin was the minimum viable number that could be bought, and the 14 extra Chinooks (including the Mk3) was all that the budget could afford on top. Of course, to add insult to injury, we actually DIDN'T have enough left over and the Mk3 procurement was financially comprimised with infamous consequences.

FLynx is in the same ballpark: the contract was an essential "sweetner" for Finmeccanica to buy out GKN at top dollar.

Back to the RAF nature of the thread, Tucano vice PC-9 is another overtly political decision; I don't mind this occurring if the Politicos are prepared to put their hand in their pockets to make up the difference - guess what, they don't. Instead, they mandate a "buy British" policy and then beat up the MoD over late and over-budget programmes. Talk about having your cake and eating it...

AH, on the other hand, is probably ( a bit too much..) money well spent. WAH-64 is a substantially better beast than the AH-64D in terms of performance and certain systems - RTM engines and HIDAS being the obvious ones. Mind you, how we specified a Army asset to enter service without BOWMAN radios is truly staggering......

[Jetex Jim]

Posts have focussed on the costs of a buy local defence policy.

Britain, (CIA world fact book) is one of the four European $2 Trillion economies. Buy local might be a luxury that the country can afford.

France adopts the same policy, spending on defence slightly more in percentage terms of a slightly smaller GDP. Yet for Britain and France industry makes up less than 20% of the economy, in Spain industry comprises 30% of the economy.

Air force manpower divided by aircraft makes for an interesting comparison (wiki).
For the RAF 48 men support each aircraft. France 78 men per aircraft

Spain, still playing against the stereotype, betters the RAF figures with 43 men per aircraft.

[Wrathmonk]

Again, the less you do with your "air foirce" the less manpower you need to run it. What harmony guidelines do you think the Spanish run - 1 det in their entire 35 year career (if they are unlucky and in the wrong place at the wrong time). And when you knock off at lunchtime 'coz its too hot then you also need fewer men!:E

[gashman]

Isn't the Spanish F18 a basic A model with semi active missiles? Last time I was on exercise with them, their weather limits were so restrictive that they were not able to launch on many of Lincolnshire's summer days (couldn't fly IMC through more than 5000' cloud or something odd like that). Kit on paper doesn't always translate to capability.