MOD to be cut by 25%: Coalition says.

[charliegolf]

Close this straight away if this is old news...... but is it? Just a headteacher, but 25% is very reminiscent of a quarter to me! What would have to go? Or is it just civil servants?

CG

[Sospan]

The way I read it in the manifesto was that running costs at MOD Whitehall would be reduced by 25%. Nothing to do with the defence budget being cut by 25%.

[EGGP]

It says they aim to reduce running costs by 25%; well the civil service in entirity is only 10% of the departments costs so I suspect it will be a lot more.

Roll on the Defence review to find out how bad things are going to get. Running costs include fuel,spares etc. If you reduce what you intend to do running costs are obviously lower unless you have already signed the contract and have to pay up anyway.

What's the betting the wrong things get cut?

[Mick Strigg]

Stand by for more travel/subs cuts, no stationery, building projects shelved etc.

My belt has run out of holes to be tightened any more!

[dervish]

Out of interest, when they say MoD is to take cuts, does that still include the Met Office?

[Red Line Entry]

The document is here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf and says:

'We will aim to reduce Ministry of Defence running costs by at least 25%'

This could either be interpreted as meaning the running costs of Main Building, or as the whole of the Defence budget except new equipment/infrastructure. Reflects the lack of understanding of Defence that is typical among our politicos.

[hulahoop7]

So 25% of the 10% or 2.5% overall - which is around the current efficiency saving anyway. Just a lot of bull**** bingo. Let's wait for the real budget cut.

[fallmonk]

Let's cut the house off lords and parliment
by 75% as a start!
There's a massive saving ,;-)

Think every one is in aggrement that things that could be done are being done , you can't have a flexible well equiped armed forces on paupers money and resorces .
If your not going to give people the equipment /wages / and decent housing , don't ask them to go to war for you!

[RumPunch]

The MOD I think have been very clever they have already started the cuts that will happen.

[tucumseh]

There has been one very subtle, but unpublicised, change in the procurement system in recent years which has "saved" Billions, but at the expense of starving Servicemen of much needed kit.

Throughout GW1, Bosnia, GW2 etc, Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) had to be delivered while still maintaining schedule on other "routine" programmes. However, one is now permitted to delay these programmes if there is a UOR. Not all are delayed, but it is a ready made excuse adopted by many.

So, while MoD trumpets the delivery of UORs costing a few hundred million, they fail to mention that higher value, and arguably equally important programmes, have been delayed. In Treasury speak, such deliberate deferral amounts to a saving, but what it actually does is prevent timely delivery of properly endorsed programmes. The question becomes - What is the nett spend?

[Phoney Tony]

Interestingly if current ops were to cease all current UORs would disappear unless they could be brought into core. This means we would end up with a big pile of useless junk that we have paid millions for. Most of the UAVs for instance.

[Pontius Navigator]

One bludgeoning area of 'defence' over the labour years has been Media Relations especially in the RAF. Otherwise known as truth central it has as its aim been a PR exercise, both internal and external, to place the RAF in the public domain.

Think those wonderful airshows at Abingdon (wash-out even without the weather) and Kinross (aka Leuchars - cancelled). media relations probably sprung up as a countervailing PR process in the face of the resolute opposition in the Treasury.

Do we really need public lobbying for aircraft carriers, advanced fighter aircraft etc etc? Public pronouncements by retired senior officers are designed to align public opinion and influence Ministers. Nothing new here, it has been ongoing for over 100 years, but do we really need a defence funded Media Relations organisation to join the fray?

Are they any less partial than privately funded industry lobby groups?

[racedo]

How dare they cut after all listening to some posters the MOD were going to get everything they ever needed if the Gubberment changed.

Me I looked at it and saw, cuts and more cuts whoever got elected. Same Suits, different day.

[minigundiplomat]

Believe the Met Office is now seperate. Given their repeated climate change tagline, wouldn't suprise me if they were now part of the energy and climate change portfolio.

[Jimlad1]

I believe Met Office is still technically part of MOD, but it is a very loose relationship - similar to DSTL. I'd see it as a prime target for privatisation post SDR.

[minigundiplomat]

After the last 12 months you have to ask - who'd buy it?

BBQ summer, Mild winter?

[A and C]

You can ask 70 Sqn what this 25 % cut is all about!

[whowhenwhy]

ooo, that hurts!:E

[vecvechookattack]

Why? Whats happening to 70 Squadron?

[A and C]

About 25% of 70 for the chop I am told.

[vecvechookattack]

About 25% of 70 for the chop I am told.

Why only 25% ... Why not disband 70 Squadron? I understand from friends in the MOD that the cuts will be more drastic than 25%.

[elderlypart-timer]

What struck me about this 25% figure was that the first time I heard about it was when an unnamed Conservative spokesperson came out with it at the last Party Conference. While Mr Fox has repeatedly called for efficiency savings and cuts in non-essential staff etc. he has never (as far as I can see) mentioned a target figure. Perhaps he thought he should wait and see what savings were sensible once he got into Main Building, rather than rely on whichever firm of management consultants came up with the 25% proposal? Is it possible he was pushed into this by one of his more Thatcherite colleagues? I'm old enough to remember what John Nott tried to do pre-the Falklands War. Is this what we're seeing again or am I being too cynical?

[Jumping_Jack]

.....and I quote....

"Phase 3 will reconcile and synthesise these decisions and produce a synthesised force structure and a risk assessment against our policy baseline."

......Jeez.....:ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

Simple.

You have to hand it to our linguistics experts

"Phase 3 will reestablish a close relationship and combine so as to form a more complex, product, and decisions and produce an integrated whole by the combining of simpler parts or entities of combat-capable part of a military organisation and the determination of quantitative or qualitative value of risk related against our policy standard by which things are measured or compared."

[Pontius Navigator]

About 25% of 70 for the chop I am told.

What will they fly? The Herc TriMaster or the C97.5?

[Riskman]

What will they fly? The Herc TriMaster or the C97.5?

Neither; the sqn will re-form as 52.5 Sqn, train less and fly more; with less people.

R

[Agaricus bisporus]

The correct answer of course is that the armed forces should not be touched, it is the civil service part of the MOD that needs the axe taking to it.

I believe we now have more unproductive parasytic bureauprats in the MOD than servicemen in the RN, Army and that other lot put together, which is clearly daft. They (the civvies, not that other lot, bless'em) are the ones who need the chop, and big-time.

Sadly as it's the bloody bureauprats that run the show they are hardly likely to slash their own numbers, and therefore their own pay-grades, index-linked pensions and OBEs so hack the services it will no doubt remain, and Hurrah!! for the civil service pension scheme!

(Vile deprecations on the civil service deleted)

[EGGP]

I heard a rumour that DE&S are being downsized from 25,000 staff to 5,000. Presumably we aren't buying anything anymore.

[round&round]

DE&S down from 25000 to 5000!!! Blimey, that will need an immediate impact statement that feeds a review panel that makes recommendations to the ideas factory so that a senior and peer review can update the risk register, once of course they've all flown Virgin Upper to the US for a meeting with their US counterparts to discuss whether any redundancy packages bought in the US will be subject to UK VAT.

DE&S + Dysfunctional, Expensive & Shi*e

Fingers crossed!!

[Geehovah]

It was tight before I retired. 25% cuts mean no redundancy. In military terms that means planning for failure.But how could a young Government with no expertise know that?

[charliegolf]

downsized from 25,000 staff to 5,000

Nope. There is a world of dosh involved in achieving that cut. Upfront money for (compulsory) redundancy payments even at statutory levels would be eye watering.

CG

[the funky munky]

The 25,000 to 5,000 figure was quoted by Bernard Jenkin MP ex shadow Defence secretary (2001-2003) who wrote a report a year or so ago which made this recommendation, I believe this was the same report Dr Fox got his original 40,000 redundancy figure from too.
By the way Jenkins has recently had to pay back £36,250 reduced from the £63,250 for the money he claimed for renting his constituency home from his Sister in law.
This man has integrity running thorugh every vein of his body and really has his finger on the pulse!

Oh no he hasn't he has his snout well deep into the trough.

[hello1]

Once these are taken into account, the Budget figures imply that other departments will face an average real cut of around 25 per cent over four years.
Clearly, if we can find any additional savings to social security and welfare beyond those which I will shortly outline, then that will greatly relieve the pressure on these departments and that 25 per cent figure.
Of course, not all departments will receive the same settlement.
I recognise, for example, the particular pressures on our education system and on defence.


So, this is not the previous 25% cut in running costs but big money. Guess we'll have to wait and see what Defence gets hit with.:ooh:

[baffy boy]

We might be able to save the taxpayer a lot of dosh by thinning civil service numbers but we could also save quite a lot by asking those in overseas posts to contribute to some aspect of their keep.
Currently the lots and lots of civil servants in overseas posts don't pay for their accommodation, power or anything towards council tax. They get better allowances than their military brethren and better benefits (such as being allowed to transport a car overseas at taxpayers expense - the military aren't allowed the luxury of taking their car overseas unless they pay for it themselves or they are posted to an embassy type post).
Simple way of recouping some dosh would be get them to pay something towards their accommodation and maybe council tax? What other UK taxpayer gets away with not paying that? How many working people don't have to pay for electricity and gas?

Get the conductor on to the gravy train and start collecting some fares, too many people have been having a free ride for too long.

[Grimweasel]

Simple - sell off/get rid on Defence Estates and then (a la Annington) sell it to an Infrastructure Management company (Serco, Mite etc) and then offload all the DE / DCRE /INFRA staffs as it would all be contracted out to cheaper civilians in the private sector, thus creating more jobs that add to the economy rather than drain it! It's got to be on the cards, surely? After all, what large PLCs run their own Infra depts?? Errr, none - sell the bloody lot off, make a packet and rent the land back in a PFI or new similar incarnation!!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Such "save to spend" initiatives are always welcome. :ok:

[Thomas coupling]

Having survived yesterday's slash and burn budget (NOT), I am beginning to think this government are erring on the side of caution. Hence my little bag of 'offerings' may well escape the real apocalypse, but here goes (and in no particular order).

Up for the chop/cut back:

JSF
2 x Carriers
In flight refueller project
Mil and civ personnel. Especially top heavy departments like the RAF.
MoD land and buildings.
Withdrawn from service: all helos except Merlin/Chinook/Lynx/Apache
Reduce Typhoon numbers and marinise some for the Carrier(s).
Sell off all cold war hardware (Tanks/APC's/subs/ships) that no longer have a place in 21st century warfare.
1 x nuclear sub.
Early withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Scrap the Red Arrows (Long overdue).

In return, pump more money into:
Intelligence gathering
MI5/6
Drones.
Robots.
Rapid deployment
Comms
IT
Sleeping with the Americans.:E

[Wyler]

No more salami slicing. It's going to be painful. I think only one remaining RAF station in Scotland and a cull of those left south of the border. Whole capabilities/fleets axed along with the personnel. Tiny Air Force remaining. Ouch!

Baffy Boy - My last tour in uniform was in SE Asia. I did not pay Council Tax, rent or utilities. The other two SO2's I worked with both had their cars shipped out, and back, at Public expense. My LOA was most generous. :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

JSF
2 x Carriers
In flight refueller project
Mil and civ personnel. Especially top heavy departments like the RAF.
I think you will find the RN has a similar top heavy manning plot. Talking top heavy, how about all the green posts in the embassies?.

MoD land and buildings.
Withdrawn from service: all helos except Merlin/Chinook/Lynx/Apache
Lynx? Why keep the Lynx?

Reduce Typhoon numbers and marinise some for the Carrier(s).
Been round that buoy again. Marinising would probably eat up all the savings. Anyway, why marinise if you get rid of the Carriers?

Sell off all cold war hardware (Tanks/APC's/subs/ships) that no longer have a place in 21st century warfare.
To whom?

1 x nuclear sub.
Early withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Scrap the Red Arrows (Long overdue).

In return, pump more money into:
Intelligence gathering
Why?

MI5/6
Why?

Drones.
Why? If you are withdrawing from AFG where else would you plan to use them? Once you have them, but no employment, then they are as much use as an E3.

Robots.
Why? To do what?

Rapid deployment
Comms
Another money pit

IT
IT in the guise of Dii already costs the same as the two carriers. I quote "We couldn't find any documents on your computer" answer, "No, they were just emails that you sent or I sent to you and will be on your computer." Much is Dii is a simple office and email system.

[NutLoose]

One wonders if they were really serious why one needs a Scottish, a Welsh and an Irish Assembly, all with their own Civil service excess baggage, doing the same Job that one Parliament used to do with a 1/4 of the civil service staffing of the four we have now...


And they say the MOD is top heavy!

[hello1]

Drones.
Robots.

Precisely what did you have in mind? My physics teacher circa 1987 and 3CPO or have you been pilfering from Uncle Clive's stash?

Army of 105 000 + reserves. Why.

[charliegolf]

One wonders if they were really serious why one needs a Scottish, a Welsh and an Irish Assembly, all with their own Civil service excess baggage, doing the same Job that one Parliament used to do with a 1/4 of the civil service staffing of the four we have now...


Thank :mad: someone thinks as you do nutloose. I thought it was just me!

CG

[Tom Laxey]

The whole UK defence sector is heading for a bit of a crunch.

Certainly, private sector views of the MOD are that it is over-manned. The MOD typically turn up to meetings with as many as the industry side put together, and they are nominally customers. And I think a lot of those civil servants don't fully-contribute to the projects they are managing, or have a clear idea why they're there. I suppose the idea was that now that the project risks are handed over to industry, having a few extra brains on hand can only help, however I'm not sure it's having the impact hoped for. Also, MOD pay & conditions must now compare well with Industry.

I always think it amusing to see talk of cutting funds for the large programs currently being designed, .e.g JSF, carriers, subs etc. Industry teams are always short-handed of the sort of quality technical staff who can sort design problems out, but at least if there is continuity of funding then there is a chance. Cutting-edge technology is expensive, and programes are planned optimistically so they get on contract. I think there will remain an understanding of that in the planning.

[tucumseh]

Certainly, private sector views of the MOD are that it is over-manned. The MOD typically turn up to meetings with as many as the industry side put together, and they are nominally customers. And I think a lot of those civil servants don't fully-contribute to the projects they are managing, or have a clear idea why they're there. I suppose the idea was that now that the project risks are handed over to industry, having a few extra brains on hand can only help, however I'm not sure it's having the impact hoped for. Also, MOD pay & conditions must now compare well with Industry.

It is certainly true that many areas of “MoD” are over-manned but your post assumes two things – MoD = DE&S and all are Civil Servants. Apart from that, you touch on important points.

Why do so many turn up at meetings? Part of the reason is that “project managers” are no longer required to demonstrate an ability to do every job in the team before being promoted to the lowest PM grade (typically Grade C2); or once they are at that grade. Expertise is spread too thinly so it is difficult to find one man who can satisfactorily represent the Department at any given meeting.

Instead of having managed projects and programmes, in every phase of the acquisition cycle (Concept to Disposal) across a range of disciplines (e.g. for an avionics engineer, Software, Sonics, Radar, Comms, Nav, EW, ELINT) before being promoted to the 2nd rung (typically Grade C1), what we have now are C2s who have never managed any part of a project, C1s who have worked for a year as 2nd assistant to the tea boy and IPT leaders who have never delivered a project (never mind to time, cost and performance) and who are demonstrably not leaders, or even managers. And please don’t get me started on Military staff who roll up to meetings mob-handed, take a few notes, say nothing of substance and then seek out the experienced and competent Civil Servant and beg him to do their job (which the regulations permit). The latter is a dying breed. That is MoD’s problem.

There is a buzz phrase going around anti-MoD places – “Conspiracy of Optimism”, trying to describe why certain projects are years late. The usual examples are Nimrod MRA4 and Chinook HC Mk3. There was no conspiracy, just a refusal to listen to the above experience. At the same time, infinitely more complex programmes were delivered by the same Directorate General in MoD(PE)/DPA with effortless competence. Why? Two reasons. On the successful projects, the same people who had the authority (or gumption) to shape the projects had the technical expertise, competence and necessary authority to implement their plans. Secondly, they completely ignored the instructions of their bosses. The unsuccessful projects had, at various times, the technical competence and expertise at lower levels but the project leaders blindly followed 1 and 2 Star instructions. (Same 2 Star remember). An example? Systems Integration is optional. If it costs too much or takes too long, ditch it. Hint for direct entrant C2s who haven’t served in the previous 5 Grades – Aircraft don’t fly (safely) without systems integration. I’ve said it before – on a Squadron you wouldn’t allow a first day trainee pilot to be appointed Senior Observer. But that’s effectively what happens in MoD every day.

[The Old Fat One]

There is an interesting article by Stephanie Flanders on the BBC Website today, which dissects the numbers announced in the budget. Simply put to achieve the savings required, and if the cuts fell equally across the whole public sector, each department would have to find a 14 percent saving. With the NHS ring-fenced and Education and Defence likely to be "favoured", some departments are looking at hits of 30-40 percent.

I doubt we will learn too much more until the Public Spending Review (November??) and the Defence Review (no idea when), but it seems to me that defence will be lucky to escape with anything less than a 10 per cent cut in real terms - and that is a big number. You're not going to achieve anything like that by simply reducing the size of the MOD - the cuts (savings) will have to be found throughout the Defence budget. If anybody has the figures handy, it would be interesting to see how much was saved by Options for Change back in 1991. If my memory serves my correctly (increasingly unlikely) those cuts (targeted at post Cold War force reduction) reduced the armed forces by about a third, but I'm not sure what the commensurate budget reduction in percentage terms was??

[Jabba_TG12]

The description you give Tuc, is (depressingly) very familiar. Particularly at Corsham.

....And Bicester for that matter.... :hmm:

[gijoe]

...and not surprisingly Abbey Wood.

I disagree with the bit about the mil asking the Civil Servants to do their stuff for them - I found it the other way around due to a lack of knowledge, ability and drive. Peanuts, monkeys etc

Give DE&S the pullthrough it needs.

:ok:

[Bigfoot]

Scrap the Puma extension, buy additional merlins / chinooks to supplement current fleets. Thus reducing costs of old equipment. Even the Black hawk buy, good piece of kit/ good value for money and troops on the ground.

Assign all helicopters to the Army Air Corps, as they are all mostly used in suppport of ground troops. Reducing all the red tape and different chains of command, thus reducing costs at the same time making it more efficient.

Re-Examine the Lynx purchase. Small in size and not even able to carry a fully equiped section of men. Replace with Black Hawk.

Just an idea.

[minigundiplomat]

Scrap the Puma extension, buy additional merlins / chinooks to supplement current fleets. Thus reducing costs of old equipment. Even the Black hawk buy, good piece of kit/ good value for money and troops on the ground.

22 Chinooks on order from US, old news and was covered in the media. A newspaper may be a good investment.

Buy more Merlins? Why? They aren't a very capable platform. It is a testament to the crews (dark and light blue), that they have made them work in some sort of fashion.

Assign all helicopters to the Army Air Corps, as they are all mostly used in suppport of ground troops. Reducing all the red tape and different chains of command, thus reducing costs at the same time making it more efficient.


Yawn, see any of the several arguments on this forum. Unless you already have and you're fishing.


Re-Examine the Lynx purchase. Small in size and not even able to carry a fully equiped section of men. Replace with Black Hawk.



Agree, but it's been suggested for years and hasn't happened, mainly because all 3 parties are chasing votes in the South West.

[Squirrel 41]

OldFatOne asked:

I doubt we will learn too much more until the Public Spending Review (November??) and the Defence Review (no idea when)

<<Anorak mode: ON>>
<<Hood mode: UP>>

Dates:

- Spending review was announced in the Budget as Wed 20 Oct 10.
- Rumour has it that SDSR should be published late Nov early Dec, but it may be a little earlier.

but it seems to me that defence will be lucky to escape with anything less than a 10 per cent cut in real terms - and that is a big number.

Quite right. A 10% cut over four years would be surprisingly good news (despite how awful that sounds) as if you cut defence and schools by 10%, then every Department other than NHS and DfID will get cut by 33%. And that's officially painful. (See the Institute of Fiscal Studies The Institute For Fiscal Studies - Emergency Budget June 2010 (http://www.ifs.org.uk/projects/330) - Rowena Crawford's presentation)

You're not going to achieve anything like that by simply reducing the size of the MOD - the cuts (savings) will have to be found throughout the Defence budget.

Yes, absolutely right. Let's call them cuts; they are. There WILL be fewer Sqns, Stations and whatnot at the end of this. Some sacred cows will get the bullet, and there's going to be a lot of blood on the floor. Running at least ankle deep, in fact. :ugh:

If anybody has the figures handy, it would be interesting to see how much was saved by Options for Change back in 1991. If my memory serves my correctly (increasingly unlikely) those cuts (targeted at post Cold War force reduction) reduced the armed forces by about a third, but I'm not sure what the commensurate budget reduction in percentage terms was??

I don't have the figures immediately to hand, OFO, but IIRC Options for Change was about -7% and Front Line First was another -4%. So our
BEST CASE scenario is "Options for Saving Money" and "Front Line Last" being conducted concurrently. :ooh:

Does that sort of put in in perspective? And remember, 25% cuts would more than twice as tough as "Options for Saving Money" and "Front Line Last" combined. At the same time. :sad:

<<Anorak mode: OFF>>
<<Hood mode: DOWN>>

S41

[Tom Laxey]

Some excellent points made here, I think. When the annual reports showing MOD project over-runs are published I tend to have sympathy for the MOD's position as customers and contract managers, in that their role as managers gives little opportunity to positively intervene to improve the cost/capability balance. However, where I am critical is in what was mentioned by Tecumseh, that failures to analyse and de-risk projects prior to launch are very costly.

To listen to the News one might think that all these British engineering companies were on the make, under-bidding to win contracts, then burning the planned funds, and then later holding MOD to ransom. What I actually suspect is true is that, whilst, yes, complex engineering projects do over-run during design/test, some this is re-working design that has already been undertaken. Risks left in projects until design often require ingenius 'fixes' during design.

Failure to tackle systems engineering is damaging to Engineering as an enterprise, and the perception is that all large engineering projects over-run, the larger and more complex, the worse the over-run. This perception is not in anyone's interest, nor is it neccesarily true, and I don't see any reason why complex engineering should be much more expensive today than previously.

[gijoe]

'...one might think that all these British engineering companies were on the make, under-bidding to win contracts, then burning the planned funds, and then later holding MOD to ransom.'

Tom,

A prime in South Wales near Newport for a well known procurement failure that regularly attracts the attention of the NAO - this is exactly what they did and do. Nothing happens for less than a £1m cheque and they constantly kid themselves and, more importantly, the export market that their project delivered to the UK MOD is a success.

Maybe this is a weakness of contracting primes but the MOD in many cases is seen as a cash cow and a 'we're a British company and you will support us even if we deliver rubbish' attitude adopted.

My time at DE&S was an eye-opener and very disappointing.

G :bored:

[Red Line Entry]

If Defence cuts 'only' come to 10%, then we should all be happy. If we implement those cuts by removing entire capabilities, or by making the positive decision to buy less cutting edge platforms (eg T45, JSF, A400M) in future, then we should all be doing cartwheels.

The alternative would be to continue the salami slicing of past years, only with much thicker slices...

[tucumseh]

Gijoe
'...one might think that all these British engineering companies were on the make, under-bidding to win contracts, then burning the planned funds, and then later holding MOD to ransom.'

Tom,

A prime in South Wales near Newport for a well known procurement failure that regularly attracts the attention of the NAO - this is exactly what they did and do. Nothing happens for less than a £1m cheque and they constantly kid themselves and, more importantly, the export market that their project delivered to the UK MOD is a success.




I think we know who you are talking about! There are always exceptions but the softly softly, you can do no wrong, approach to that particular company, and in particular the protection afforded both they and their suppliers, was and remains scandalous. What other company would be let off with a complete product recall and disposal; followed by 2 or 3 years to replace the defective kit during which time the shortage caused deaths in theatre? Especially as other companies were queuing up at AbbeyWood to sell a fully compliant, better made product at half the price. (I suppose having a Defence Minister on your supplier’s Board may help).



I know one of these suppliers was warned off by MoD’s Commercial Director, the precursor to being blacklisted. This is a feature of MoD procurement in IPTs that have a combination of weak leadership and incompetent Commercial staff – if a potential supplier dares criticise an Invitation to Tender, or offers a better solution, they risk everything. It is why they “answer the exam question”, even though the question may be daft. Then, if they get the contract, they apply pressure to those who have taken over management of the contract (not the above leaders and Commercial) and, hopefully, together they work out a better plan. The downside is that this often means delay, but not always cost increase. In this case it was both due to the sheer scale and cumulative effect of the basic howlers – all of which were notified before the event. That is the worst aspect. None of the problems came as a surprise.

[ORAC]

There's a repeated refrain from Fox et al about there being too many fast jets. I'd argue the case that the phase 3 Typhoon tranches have/are mostly being used to offset sales to Saudi/Oman etc; and that the JSF buy is unlikey to be more than 7-80 aircraft.

Regardless, there is no real monetary saving in cutting the odd squadron, the real savings are in retiring a fleet with all the associated training, logistic support etc.

Accetping the Typhhon and the JSF will form the core of the future RAF, that leaves the GR4 fleet. I accept that will leave a large capability gap until the Typhoon weapons upgrades are completed and/or a suitable future UAV capabilty can be procured - if at all. But it does make for a major saving in costs, plus it eliminates the need for FJ navigator training and a resultant reduction in manpower.

I wouls also suggest that the smaller ELINT platforms being produced in increasing numbers render the cost effectiveness of using the MRA4 in such a role moot, and the viability of a the fleet as an ASW/ASUW force is limited due to the numbers being procured. We are already taking a capability "holiday" due to the delay. I would suggest it could well become permanent and the Nimrod fleet could go the way of the V force and strategic bomber forces.

As has been stated elsewhere, we are beyond minor salami slicing and efficiency savings. That means cutting bone.

[vecvechookattack]

Re-Examine the Lynx purchase. Small in size and not even able to carry a fully equiped section of men. Replace with Black Hawk.


And the SH 60R for the Navy..... A much more capable aircraft.

[indie cent]

RAF expects to cut some aircraft types (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/24/343632/raf-expects-to-cut-some-aircraft-types.html)

Impossible to escape the inevitible.

[XR219]

Surely the Tornado GR4 fleet is the obvious one to cut first? Now that the rest of the RAF's fast jet inventory is down to three-and-a-half squadrons of Typhoon, two squadrons of Harrier, and one of Tonka F3, it's rather surprising, to say the least, that there are still no fewer than eight GR4 squadrons still around (AFAIK). Especially when you consider that two of the roles that the GR1 previously fulfilled (tactical nuclear strike and anti-shipping) are now no more...

[Wrathmonk]

Especially when you consider that two of the roles that the GR1 previously fulfilled (tactical nuclear strike and anti-shipping) are now no more...

And when the TGRF had those roles it also had 11 or 12 squadrons. Those roles may have gone but many, many more have appeared. So, yet again, we're back to the Harrier vs Tornado question. The Tornado can sustain Afghan ops pretty much indefinately (as it had done in the Iraq theatre for the previous 15+ years). The Harrier can't. So lets kill Harrier off. The RN seem to be diverting their pilots to the USN to get deck time (and if the Harrier was recommitted to AFG then deck time disappears). The only thing keeping Harrier alive is the "capability gap" pre-JSF. What would you rather have - a capability gap in a role that is not being used (carrier ops) or a capability gap in a role that is?

Besides, sqns are completely irrelevant as no two (aircraft types) squadrons are the same. Its all about FE@R. But you knew that anyway, didn't you ;)

Edited to add - its 7 squadrons plus an OCU :p

[Squirrel 41]

ORAC wrote:

Regardless, there is no real monetary saving in cutting the odd squadron, the real savings are in retiring a fleet with all the associated training, logistic support etc.

Quite right; this is why I think that Harrier will be first to go as a result of the previous cuts and that it is not scheduled to got back to Afghanistan. I suspect that Harrier will be going by the end of the financial year, and harsh as it is, I wouldn't be surprised to see go in 2010. Remember the fate of 6 Sqn at the end of the Jag.... :* (And I'm sure that you'll go out in true Bonajet style!)

Accepting the Typhoon and the JSF will form the core of the future RAF, that leaves the GR4 fleet. I accept that will leave a large capability gap until the Typhoon weapons upgrades are completed and/or a suitable future UAV capability can be procured - if at all. But it does make for a major saving in costs, plus it eliminates the need for FJ navigator training and a resultant reduction in manpower.

I half agree with this. Typhoon and Dave (JSF / JCA / F-35) will form the the RAF FJ fleet in the 2020s. However, I think the fiscally possible route to this is to delay the arrival of Dave until the GR4s are retired, not the other way around. Within this, it would be possible (if unpalatable) for the GR4 force to focus exclusively on Herrick and be slimmed down as a result. Slim it far enough (4 Sqns + OCU?) and two further savings are possible:

- first, closing Marham or Lossie (i.e. probably Marham given that it's due to close later this decade. Doubtless Norfolk needs another prison. :hmm:)

- second, you'll have enough Navs in the system now to see the jet to an OSD of 2020(ish).

Once you go firm on this - and potentially golden handcuff enough Navs - you can stop all Nav training making substantially greater savings. So, a potential for a FJ Nav Retention scheme - some sort of a silver lining? ;) (Note to SDSR PSOs: this is a non-reversible decision - make sure you're sure before pressing to test!)

This would retain a TGRF strategic capability with Storm Shadow, but precious little else - it would be "all Afghanland all the time" for most of the next decade - especially as PM Cameron has pencilled a land force in theatre until beyond 2015. A substantially smaller GR4 force would then be replaced with a similar sized JSF force from 2020 - preferably Dave-C, given the extra range and weapons capacity.

The next question is how many Typhoon Sqns you want to form, and what do you want them to do? Ministerial statements from the last government and the current situation suggest that Tranche 3b is dead and buried. Others here will know better than I the number of Typhoons that are on contract, minus the number diverted to Saudi (and potentially Oman).

Next question: what do you want Typhoon to do in the medium term? Again, a reasonable worst case, though unpalatable, would give you Typhoon doing AD with a very limited A-G commitment, focussed on QRA(I) North, South and Far South. On this pattern, 111's lonely northern vigil with the F3 shows that you can maintain QRA with one large Sqn (which is not to say that this is any fun, but that's the way it goes) suggesting that you could do QRA (though not much else) with 4 Sqns + OCU, or about 60 jets. (I do hope that the F3s bow out with a suitable amount of Tremblers' style and panache next spring.... 404+ Switchblade flick-knife of death to the end! :cool:)

Where does this get us with Typhoon? At a push, perhaps 3 Sqns + OCU? And if you've got a single Sqn doing QRA North, then having Leuchars open seems like an expensive luxury - so relocate QRA North to Lossie or Kinloss. (Probably going to be lots of room at Kinloss for sometime to come...). Given the diversion requirements, if you converted Leuchars into Tayport International Airport (for Dundee and St Andrews), then you'd be well advised to pay them to keep the cable.

Finally, if you end up with as small an FJ frontline as this, you immediately call into question then need for the FJ MFTS in particular and Valley / Linton in general. The demand could be met using NFTC Cold Lake, resulting in very significant savings, especially of the Hawk 128s and Tucano replacement elements of MFTS. (Note to SDSR PSOs: this is also effectively a non-reversible decision - make sure you're sure before pressing to test!)

Just some (unwelcome) thoughts. But I'd be surprised if these weren't under consideration as the left-field options in the SDSR bunker.

S41

PS, Sorry for the length.

[andrewn]

If current speculation is to be believed then it doesn't seem as though your "leftfield" predictions will be too far out.

So the future frontline RAF could look something like this then:

Heli's
70'ish Chinooks (assume Puma pensioned off and Merlins to CHF)
A few SK soldiering on in SAR

AT/AAR
22x A400M
7x C-17
14x A330 (FSTA)

FJ
120x Typhoon
50-60x F-35 (some way off and a split buy with RN)

ISTAR
4x E-3D plus 5x Sentinel and a few other bits and bobs

So in terms of MOB's that's Benson or Odiham plus Brize, Coningsby, Leuchars, Lossie and Waddo with presumably Valley and Shawbury retained for training

Mmmm..... Someone somewhere is definitely making an assumption that major state on state warfare is either a) a thing of the past, or b) we'll have enough friends on our side to make our negligible contribution irrelevant.

Or of course we could just nuke them!

[Postman Plod]

At the same time, the government seem to be putting some distance between the UK and the US in the special relationship, and the US are raising the Falklands issue with the UN Decolonisation committee?

[500days2do]

Who in their right mind thought that 120 Typhoon is a realistic number of aircraft...? I'm sure it was more originally...!!!

Anyone reading these figures would think that someone was hell bent on supporting their own desires not the needs of the country...!!!

The figures are totally unacceptable...its crass and a downright fraud to let the 'fastjet' mafia control RAF doctrine...!!!

As ex-RAF aircrew myself, I will shed no tears when the axe falls on dozens of pilot positions and jobs for the boys...they have supported their bosses who now will have the honour of killing off the airforce...

5d2d

[Two's in]

Interesting comments in the MRA4 thread about what to do with all the personnel if Nimrod gets chopped - the answer is fairly obvious. This Government is determined to make its case for reducing costs and lowering spending. I really don't think most people have understood the scale of the changes likely to be introduced as a result of the SDR. Very few Ivory towers will remain intact after this so now is a good time is a good time to assess whether you are really up for a change or not - it's coming anyway.

[Squirrel 41]

500d2do

Who in their right mind thought that 120 Typhoon is a realistic number of aircraft...? I'm sure it was more originally...!!!

It was originally 250 + 60 options, trimmed to 232 in the SDR, and currently something like 160. I wouldn't be surprised if the post-SDSR Forward Available Fleet (FAF, how ironically appropriate) exceeds about 70 from a long term fleet of around 100 jets.

S41

[vecvechookattack]

BBC News - Defence Secretary Liam Fox warns on spending (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10701773)

[Melchett01]

Watching the various bits of coverage of Farnborough and Fox's briefings to relieve the utter tedium of more planning, it got us talking in the office, with the conclusion that the coming months would bring nothing but misery for the forces, and the RAF in particular.

Whilst I am all for financial responsibility - along with stringing up the MOD contract writers, I'm afraid that whatever happens in the coming months will be nothing more than short term parochialism by the various chiefs, and especially CDS which will leave the RAF and RN facing a bleak future.

No doubt the SDSR will conclude that we must resource ourselves for The War, and that is all that matters. Anything else is an expensive distraction bordering on irrelevant. But what people must realise is that the force structure for The War was decided years ago. Nothing that CDS and the politicians do now will fundamentally change what we do and how we do it with regard to Afghanistan. The changes that have got kit to the battlefield when and where it was needed came about because of the UOR process, not through any strategic decisions taken on the upper floors of the MOD. Whatever strategic course of action is embarked on now will have little effect on the outcome of the war here in Afghanistan. It will however, have a major impact on how the UK is perceived around the world - with the all the potential security impacts that may bring - and it will impact on how we go about defending ourselves in decades to come.

Way back in the 1970s, a Hansard Committee chaired by Sir Richard Marsh produced a report - Politics and Industry the Great Mismatch. It basically argued that politicians - and in this respect I include CDS et al - are only interested in the short term, where as industry has too look out decades if it is to be successful. I do hope CDS and Fox take the time to read it, it might actually inform their thinking and lead us to a properly balanced and resourced military in coming decades. Otherwise, I fear we will be reduced to a well armed gendarmerie, where the RAF and RN are little more than glorified taxis for the Army.

And with that tuppence worth into the mix, I shall go back to the tedium of my planning and the extra strong Dutch coffee we have on tap (NATO isn't all bad you know!)

[jumpseater]

One idea that the Guvmint don't appear to have considered is cost savings by co-locating RAF operational units within civilian airports.

There would certainly be some operational hurdles and integration to overcome, and re-location costs, but I can think of a few UK civvy airports where it would be a viable option. I would think it could potentially save forces jobs and allow more assets to be kept operational without the full overheads of having an airfield to maintain. After all it works in other countries ...

[RumPunch]

Today we have the boots on ground war , all goes well we pull out of Afghan , what will be the need in 2014 for a huge Army when recent history tells us Airpower (Land or Naval Based) starts all wars off, wipes out the bad guys then hands over to the ground troops to clean up. If anything we will need our Naval and deployable assets more than ever , especially with Iran, NK all itching for a slice of war.

Falklands kicks off for example , how the hell are 100,000 troops going to get to Argentina , Walk !

Dont matter anyway ,the decisions have been made :ugh::ugh:

[Two's in]

Falklands kicks off for example , how the hell are 100,000 troops going to get to Argentina , Walk !

It only took 5,000 last time, for the 100,000 number you must be thinking of the crew required to deploy a Typhoon singleton for the Jersey Air Show.

[22/7 Master]

The Uk is dependent on an import of energy and food. Moreover as the Uk's natural gas reserves continue to deplete and given that renewables only continbute partially to the energy mix the level of gas imports will increase significantly over the next 10 years.

We currently rely on piped supplies from Russia who know they have a monopoly on supply to western europe. In order to mitigate this the Uk has built a super-dock at Milford Haven to unload bulk liquified natural gas (LNG) vessels.

LNG is a growth industry. Whereas the gas has up until now been flared off (GOSPs in Basra anyone?) it is now being processed as a valuable resource.

It is highly likely that the Falkland's EEZ contains sizeable quantities of Oil, Gas and Condensate (Wer Gas). Indeed the current drilling campaign has resulted in a oil strike (Sea Lion Well) and a potential gas strike (Liz well). There is much more to come.....

Argentina is currently sufferring blackouts due to a shortage of Gas, this has led to:

Lobbying throughout Latin America to re-open the Malvinas debate.

Illegally blocking vessels from transitting from Argentinian TTW to the Falklands EEZ.

Lobbying of the US administration with regard to the Malvians Debate, resulting in Mrs Clinton making anti-British comments and agreeing to consider referring the Falklands to the UN decolonisation committee. Aside - so much for the Special Relationship. The right to self determination is enshrined in the UN charter, so as long as the populace of the Falkland's wish to remain British, they can.

So what? The idea that every future conflcit will see the UK as a minor coalition partner is flawed. Argentina is watching the Falklands like a hawk and you can bet any decisions will be influenced heavily by the outcome of SDSR. 1982 anyone - decision to cut Endurance, Hermes, Fearless and Intrepid led a perception the UK would not intervene in the Argentine invasion.

The 21st century will be about resource wars - Fossil Fuels, food, water, heavy metals. China has bought a sizable percentage of Africa's mineral wealth, owns most of the far east and is moving into latin america and even Canada. The west will continue to be squezzed out of all but the most basic of manufacturing, which the chinese, having a slave labour force can do more cheaply. Our future is as slave consumers to the Chinese machine.

The smart money is leaving the UK already and moving to the middle and far east. Banking will soon start to avalanche to Dubai and Shanghai at which point the UK will become nothing more that a disney-type theme park.

You don't need a big military to protect that now do you.

[billynospares]

Andrewn "AT/AAR
22x A400M
7x C-17
14x A330 (FSTA)"

I presume we are going to sell of the 24 C-130 J's we have then ?

[ORAC]

I presume we are going to sell of the 24 C-130 J's we have then ? Logically, yes.

We don't need all 3 types, we certainly don't need the numbers of A440M and C-130J now we have the C-17s, certainly not after we pull out of Afghanistan. With the C-17 we could get by with either the C-130J or A400M; but we are committed to the A400M and it's larger hold is more suitable for future army vehicles.

So, logically, we use up the hours on the c-130Js then sell them (or trade them in with Boeing for a couple more C-17s, if they're still building them by then.)

[Impiger]

Surely a better mix would be a few more C17s say to a total of 10 (maybe 12) and the same number of C130Js or perhaps one or two more and no A400M. Running 3 types is bound to be expensive.

[D O Guerrero]

What savings would be made by integrating the Royal Marines into the Army I wonder?
What would be lost? The Navy's soldiers have been doing a fine job for centuries. Why meddle with things to save 10p? They might as well just scrap the RM and make the Paras bigger...
Glad I'm out...

[Data-Lynx]

The Spectator has chipped with a blog (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6157023/the-raf-is-in-danger-of-being-destroyed-on-the-ground.thtml) which notes that the service arms have mobilised their writers to prepare a defence. The RAF are alleged to be extracting their brightest and best to manage the fallout from the SDSR. Meanwhile The Times has hosted a set-to between Air-Vice Marshall Tony Mason and Major General Julian Thompson. Have a look at the link for the opening shots.

Meanwhile, you have until 31 July 2010 to add your views to the link for the SDSR Engagement Exercise with the Armed Forces and Civilians. (http://sdsr.defenceconsultations.org.uk/limesurvey/index.php?sid=63683&lang=en)

[MarkD]

Scrap the nuclear deterrent at the earliest possible date - it's deterring nobody that the Americans don't deter too. I suppose you could retool the Vanguards with Tomahawk if you really wanted to eke out the investment until they rust out but scrapping the missile removes a pricey ongoing expense, while removing a massive one in the future capital spend.

Eviscerating the conventional arms in time of peace to (in part) keep the nuclear option is unwise in peace time, but completely irrational given the current and likely demands on UK Forces.

[vecvechookattack]

They might as well just scrap the RM and make the Paras bigger...

I think that disbanding the Royal Marines is a distinct possibility. If we get rid of our Amphibious capability then why do we need the Royal Marines?

[Ali Barber]

One nuclear deterrant into the wastelands of interior Argentina might persuade them to give them back!

[gijoe]

Don't think the scrapping of the Corps of RM likely but a big Para/RM org much more likely. When you look at who has been at the front of the queue to go to Iraq/Afg both 3 and 16 Bdes feature heavily in the line up. Boat skills will always be needed but parachuting maybe not - so there maybe some retraining required.

...but all bets are off in this SDR and the CS will be led by money.

I want to hear more talk of redundancies :ok:

G

[Trim Stab]

All the services need to become more flexible employers in the labour market, and facilitate career transition between regular/reserve/civilian.

The services are very inflexible employers with an over-rigid career structure at present. If you don't join before your mid twenties, you are excluded for life, whatever qualifications and experience you may acquire after an arbitrary date. Why?

Reserves can have more operational experience than some regulars, but cannot transition to full-time service if they wish to do so. Why?

The services have become more flexible as employers in recent years, but still they do not make best use of the labour market.

[Two's in]

All the services need to become more flexible employers in the labour market, and facilitate career transition between regular/reserve/civilian.

The services are very inflexible employers with an over-rigid career structure at present. If you don't join before your mid twenties, you are excluded for life, whatever qualifications and experience you may acquire after an arbitrary date. Why?

Because the Services are not an employer. Their primary purpose is to deliver extreme violence and destruction upon the enmy using the most effective means possible. If you are fortunate enough to gain some useful civilian type skills along the way, then all well and good, but that is not the "purpose" of the Services. It is and always has been a young people's game, some reasonable career progression allows you to remain serving while getting older, but the sharp end is firmly the domain of young people for some obvious reasons.

[Non Emmett]

Some interesting thoughts and comments on here as usual. Much talk of MOD cuts, as of course one might expect as we need savings. Often seems to me that the numbers of Squadron Leaders and above need to be radically reduced to reflect today's manning levels plus the lower levels we seem to be heading towards. We still have several hundred Group Captains and over 1000 Wing Co's last time I looked at some figures.

I chatted to a couple of young hopefuls recently who were aiming for a career in the RAF and wondered how they might fare given today's uncertainty. Then I remembered my son's perilous position in a civvie engineering job where 75% have been laid off. Good luck to all serving personnel in the uncertain times we face, sadly we need to save money. My sole gripe would be the number of officers as I've outlined above.

Just a personal observation and happy to be shot down if you feel so inclined !

[ORAC]

My sole gripe would be the number of officers as I've outlined above.


Torygraph: 21 July: Liam Fox: Senior officers face the axe (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7903354/Liam-Fox-Senior-officers-face-the-axe.html)

The senior ranks of the Armed Forces will be thinned out to save money, Liam Fox has signalled.

The Defence Secretary told MPs that the ratio of senior officers to junior personnel is being reassessed as part of a wider review of Britain’s defences. That means some Army brigadiers, Royal Navy admirals and RAF air commodores could lose their jobs.

Giving evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee, Dr Fox accepted that the proportion of senior officers to rank-and-file personnel is “out of kilter” and signalled that senior personnel are likely to be cut. “Budgetary restraint has to be exercised at all levels of the Armed Forces,” he said. “We do have to look at the rank structure – that will be looked at.

Ministry of Defence figures show there are 47 officers of three-star rank – lieutenants general, vice admirals and air marshal. Their combined salary bill is £6.8 million a year. According to a study published in 2008, the Royal Navy now has more admiral-rank officers than active warships.

The number of more junior “star rank” officers has risen steadily too. Since 1997, the number of Army Brigadiers has risen from 170 to 190. The number of Royal Navy commodores rose from 82 to 84. But the number of RAF air commodores has fallen from 95 to 90.

The previous Labour government began work on cutting the number of senior officers, and the Coalition is continuing that work as part of its strategic defence review...........

[MarkD]

Ali - a couple of Vanguard-fired Tomahawks into interesting parts of BA would do the same job for less collateral damage.

[VinRouge]

ORAC,

be interested in seeing what their pensions and redundancy payments would be in comparison to the pay bill. Even if they dont renew their contracts at the termination of their current tour, I cant imagine them saving more than 40% on the salary due to the terms of their pensions.

[ORAC]

I refer you to my previous post on 25th June.... :cool: (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/415778-mod-cut-25-coalition-says-3.html#post5773221)

The Times: Tornado or Harrier fast jet fleets to be axed by National Security Council (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article2659134.ece)

The Royal Air Force and the Navy are locked in a dogfight to save their fast jets after a decision by the National Security Council to scrap either the RAF’s Tornado fleet or the Navy’s Harriers.

The decision to sharply reduce Britain’s 215 aircraft fleet was one of several made at an “Away Day” meeting of the security council on Saturday as part of the Strategic Defence Review. It is expected that the review will cut between 10 and 20 per cent of Britain’s defence capability.

“It has come down to either Harrier or Tornado,” a Ministry of Defence source said, insisting that “no decision on which will go has yet been made”.

Another senior source said: “The issue is this: one fast jet fleet has to be taken out of service ASAP, full stop.”

Ministers are also expected to consider the long-term storage of tanks and artillery, the closure of several bases, the sale of Ministry of Defence housing assets, and cuts of up to 25,000 servicemen across the three services to recoup billions of pounds by 2015.

Scrapping the RAF’s 132-strong Tornado fleet, seven squadrons, could claw back up to £3 billion. The aircraft, which were designed in the early 1970s, are due to remain in service, with service-life-extension upgrades, until 2025.

The RAF is understood to be strongly in favour of shelving the much smaller “Joint Force Harrier”. This includes 36 RAF and Navy Fleet Air Arm Harrier GR9 aircraft, in three frontline squadrons and one training squadron. Scrapping the Harriers would save approximately £1 billion but would leave Britain without any aircraft-carrier-borne capability.

With the two services battling to retain cherished assets, senior naval sources accuse the RAF of providing misleading data on the success of the Tornado since the aircraft took over from the Harrier in Afghanistan last year. They also claim that the aircraft has been less durable in harsh Afghan conditions, with two Tornados lost to systems failures in the past year.

“We are well versed in the Harrier guys’ arguments,” a senior RAF source said. “The feedback we are getting is that the Tornado is performing better than the Harrier did in Afghanistan and this is leaving the Harriers feeling particularly vulnerable.”

The RAF has been keen to claim success for the Tornado in a reconnaissance role in Afghanistan, where it has been fitted with the Raptor surveillance pod. Another well-placed source told The Times that scrapping the Tornado was “finding favour” with ministers. The RAF is expected to seek to redevelop the Eurofighter Typhoon jet to provide a ground-attack capability from 2015 onwards. This would occupy some of the space left if the Tornado were scrapped.

[Pontius Navigator]

As I mentioned here, or elsewhere, Dannatt was in favour of sidelining the tanks and MLRS although mothballing was not mentioned.

I also suggested that the Tonka, purely from a financial aspect, was the better of the two FJ types to withdraw.

Far more aircrew, more groundcrew and two major bases. Removing the entire FJ navigator cadre would enable withdrawal of all FJ elements of the nav trg regime - Hawks and Tucano - the former could be mothballed for the Red Arrows. The financial benefits will be most attractive.

WSO(Nav) training could be colocated with the RN Observer training with the MRA4 force benefiting immediately from maritime indoctrination. Indeed it may finally give the RN the leverage to acquire the LRMPA that is has covetted for years. This may even be essential as the light blue WSO(Nav) gene pool would be too small. The only other aircraft that will have WSO(Nav) in the future would, I think, be the E3. That seat, if retained could be filled by a dark blue observer or maybe a P3 (cheaper than a navigation school).

Much as I would be sad to see navigators go (OK we changed the name years ago) it would make much more financial sense to chop GR4 and WSO(N). One question would remain: what about flying pay for the few Navs not transferred to UAV or made redundant?

[thebword]

Pontious,

there is one massive flaw in your argument. Whilst deleting the Tornado would save more money because of its size, OSD and basing structure, it would be a catastrophic mistake because:

It is the backbone of the RAF's growth plan for bringing new aircrew into the Service (nearly 2/3 of new fast jet crews are absorbed through this Force - JFH takes a handful) - this would place at risk aircrew retention and recruiting from which we would probably never recover (an RN plot?).

It provides 4 times the size of deployed capability as JFH.

It has the only deep strike capability to meet the most protected targets (a key capability for deterring certain countries who have aspirations in certain capabilities).

It has a planned OSD that allows Typhoon and JCA to establish themselves without a gap in capability (do you honestly think they will deliver on time?).

It will continue to meet Afghan commitments and a contingency capability (JFH can only do one or the other, and even then at massive risk).

If JFH had to return to Afghanistan then you can kiss the embarked capability good bye.

Even the smaller JFH in its current form could not endure an Afghan commitment for more than about a year

Economies of scale, mean that running a small force actually costs you more per deployable unit.

The Tornado is doing a mgnificent job in Afghanistan, just as the Harrier did, the campaign is changing and the GR4 is providing key, niche capabilities that are perfect for the job (making false allegations about capabilities whilst engaged in a current operation is treason, perhaps they were made by the same poeple responsible for the Wikileak as well!)

It is shame that we may have to choose between 2 very proud and capable forces, but the facts are irrefutable and the resource pressures mean that a hybrid option is not as viable.

If this wasn't more about RN sensitivity on the carriers this would be a no-brainer. If it was my vote I would keep them both and find the money else where in Defence - but I don't think that is realistic.

Your comment on leveraging LRMPA is perhaps the most telling and it would appear that you see an RAF saving option (and it is an RAF option as the aircraft funding flows through the Air Cmd budget) in the light of how it benefits the RN. It is for this reason that RN views on this option must be viewed with some suspicion. This has to be a pure capability argument, not one of emotion or single service opportunity. Before anyone suggests that this would sound the death knell for fixed wing FAA, take a look at the RN's one way US exchange programme to see that this is unfounded.

Loss of some embarked capability (which could be provided by other countries - Spain, Italy and USMC have all embarked AV8B recently), is a risk we may have to take for a few years and would be a small price to pay for some discretionary capability whilst we wait for the big ships to come on line.


(edited to add more arguments in support)

[Pontius Navigator]

BWord, remember I kept mentioning the FINANCIAL argument, nothing about effectiveness. When you mention deep strike you of course predicate that HMG will want a deep strike option.

Regarding the LRMP, true it would come off the AIR budget but that was not my argument. My argument in this case was a military one. The WSO(N) Gene pool for RAF MPA would be just too small to justify an air navigation training system followed by on-sqn training. The RN O pool is probably not very large either. Combining the two would produce an economy of scale and justify the retention of some Dominie too.

So what I am really saying, and you are agreeing, is that the Tonka is the more attractive target and thus is the one that needs defending more vigorously.

[Bismark]

thebword,

My you are active at the moment!

Please do not read more into RN subterfuge and aspirations.....they simply do not exist as all of our time is spent fighting off an insecure RAF.


I do not understand your comment on RAF growth plan via the GR4 force when the FJs of the future are all single seat and mumbers are in a decline mode anyway, much better to grow JCA pilots through Typhoon and GR9 (and the USN), than the GR4 route. And the only reason JFH is becoming non-viable is because the RAF engineered its decline to achieve such a result...no Defence interest came into it. Getting GR4 into Afgh was a sop to the failure to get Typhoon there (to justify its retention); GR9 was perfectly capable in theatre and not broken. If the RN had had an ability to have an equal say in the deployment pattern of JFH, maintaining an embarked capability would have been relatively easy. GR4 is vastly more manpower and logistics expensive in theatre than GR9, not to mention its footprint.

Of course GR4 is doing a fantastic job, one would expect nothing less, but is it the best and cheapest option and did it actually need to deploy. The answer is no on all counts.

Re loss of embarked capability/relying on partner nations to provide a discretionary (for them) capability, you clearly do not understand the inherent risks in gapping a major sea-based aviation capability (of which the aircraft and aircrew are just part - a point the RAF have singularly failed to appreciate and accept since 1918).

If one makes an assumption (whatever one's view) that at least one carrier will survive the cuts then one should accept that continuity of a maritime based FW component will have to be assured to provide the capability our Government requires.

[Madbob]

Bismark, I agree with your last post and the sentiments that you express, and I am ex light blue, not dark.....

The real issue in this whole debate is down to funding. HMG decides both on the size of "loaf" and the amount of "butter" it gives us. We all like our bread spread with lots of butter but successive cutbacks in butter have left us all very thinly spread. Now we can't butter the whole loaf.

The simple choice is give the armed forces more "butter" OR reduce the size of "loaf". The problem though is that the threats we as a nation face won't go away, nor can we predict when and where these threats will happen.....

Politically, the government (of all hues) have neglected defence spending for 20 plus years (remember Options for Change?) in spite of various conflicts like the Balkans, GW1, GW2 and now Afg. There are more votes to be won spending taxpayers money on the NHS, Education, Welfare and Social Security and the MOD's budget is seen as a soft target. (The armed forces aren't union-dominated and servicemen (women) can be moved, or encouraged to leave (either voluntarily or otherwise:sad:) by fair means and foul.

The end-result just provokes in-fighting between the Services as we fight for diminishing funds and lip service is paid by successive Secretaries of State who fail to stand up and fight the Treasury to resource Defence properly. We compound things by our can-do attitude which leaves the impression that we can still get the job done when the reality is that we have lost various core capabilities years ago.

The polititians still want to portray the UK as being able to take our seat at "the top table" (UN, NATO, G7, Security Council etc. etc.) but like a onece heavy-weight boxer, we have been on starvation rations for so long we are now only able to compete against fly-weight opponents.:( Soon we will only be able to watch the "match" as spectators as the world gets more dangerous and unstable........
MB

[StopStart]

It's worth remembering that despite all our woes and grumbles and general gurning at the Govt, we are actually in receipt of the one of the biggest defence budgets in the world. It's true that a big pile of that goes on the wages bill (generally no complaints here...) but the MoD really does have a lot to answer for where it comes to wasting money. Yes, we can cut front line capabilities but I hope that is accompanied by a proportional cut in the money we tip into agencies, bureaucracy and the garbage procurement deals we manage to hatch out....

[thebword]

Bismark & Pontius, my argument is one of scale, and capability (I won't labour the latter as I made my arguments on that previously).

The fact of the matter is that a Typhoon/GR9 only force on current scale would be like the RN having to grow a Carrier Strike capability in 8 years with only a frigate to train on. It is not about the single seat issue (JCA will be far easier to fly than traditional older aircraft, even the vertical bit) it is about critical mass.

Your arguments are based on simple emotional premises, not maths, logic and basic programming principles (Nelson's blind eye to the telescope won't help us when we are making such critical decisions). In order to absorb the new crews to meet the future requirement we need a fast jet force of a certain mass. Why do you think the RN have already put so many aircrew in the US on one-way fast jet exchanges (JFH is not big enough for them to grow and they can't even man half of that).

As for the Afghan argument of swapping aircraft types - the bottom line is that the Harrier Force was on its last legs in terms of skill sets and capability. RN arguments that their harmony rules would have allowed more is flawed. It wasn't rest that was at risk it was safety (I have seen the stats). It will take two years for the Harrier Force to recover the skill sets necessary to meet mandated capabilities next year.

I am afraid that you have fallen for the argument that was put forward at the time, which was designed to desperately leave the force in theatre to avoid exactly what is happening now. But, quite rightly, embarked contingent capability and safety over rode the argument for keeping it in the so called "relevant" fight.

I accept your point about maintaining embarked skill sets, but the RN did it for 5 years without the Harrier whilst it was in Afghanistan.

In my view we should all be avoiding using the Afghan theatre as the deciding argument for future capability - but that is where the generals have taken it.

If we don't need a deep strike capability, you better get ready to cross a lot more of your shopping list, and don't exepct to get any influence with the Yanks (instead of "junior partner", try "whipping boy". In my mind this is such a key issue, if we don't want to play on the World stage then lets hope we get a lot more snow next year so we can truly become Switzerland.

Having just read today's Times article we may be dancing on a pin head (albeit a rather important one). The quote: "the carriers were not yet safe as the eye watering costs of the programme became clearer" should send a shiver down the Navy spine. If, as you say, this is a financial argument then they may have just found something even more attractive! Maybe they don't want that deep strike capability. Of course we could always just fight them on the beaches (it was a good sound bite once).

I also see below that article that Liam Fox was snubbed by the Saudis at the last minute, maybe this is his first taste of what it means to be a third class player on the World stage - he may have to get used to it! Might be something to do with those Tornados we sold them, the ones we are thinking of ditching early!

Blue touch paper lit, retires quietly........

[Pontius Navigator]

Bword,

You are still missing my points.

1. Cancellation of the GR4 is by far the most attractive financially. I am not arguing for its cancellation but highlighting its vulnerability.

2. MRA4 and maritime - there is no way that Air could cut it from the RAF budget and expect the RN to pick it up and pay for it. Air thought that was true of the AWRs when DTE took them over. They simply deleted the budget lines. A year down the line they discovered that any changes that they required DTE to make had to be funded by Air.

Now, ignoring the GR4 issue as we are on the same side, how would you address the MRA4 issue? The saving from switching the ownership of the MRA4 comes from the simplified training system. Of course that simplified system is predicated on the cancellation of the GR4. Retain the GR4 and you need a FJ Nav training regime with Domine, Tucano and Hawk but boy, are they an attractive short term budget saving.

[thebword]

Ok, I accept that your argument is one of pure finance (but that way danger lies, as we count the cost of everything and the value of nothing).

As for MRA4 and rear crew training. I think you will find that this a very small part of the cost. Ownership and the running costs will dwarf the training cost for just that element. Fast jet WSO(N) training is already being managed into decline and many of the F3 Navs have made an excellent transition to the ground attack role (with some more to come). The few who will continue to join as ab initios will not break the bank. There is no holy grail here to bail out Nimord - it will have to stand on its own two feet.

I think that any argument that talks of one service transferring the liability of an asset to another is bogus. It is defence money and it will follow the capability (such as should be the case for Merlin); therefore there is no scenario that sees the RAF dropping something on the expectation that the RN will have to fund it out of hide.

[Biggus]

PN,

Whilst I am not advocating kepings WSOs I think your comments on the cost savings associated with getting rid of them are oversimplistic.


Take such comments as "...making savings by withdrawing the Hawks used for FJ Nav training and the Dominies.....". Well aren't they going anyway. I thought all the original Hawks were going in the next few years to be replaced by some 30 odd new Hawks type. As for the Dominies, they have been around since 1966, surely they are up for the chop soon.

Were does MFTS fit into this, surely a contract has been agreed based on training a certain number of WSOs per year, and breaking it by MOD will incur costs?

As I said, I am not advocating retaining WSOs for their own sake. I simply believe that, like most things in life, the savings from getting rid of them will not be as easy to predict as you seem to imply!

Several years ago the relevant desk officer wrote a paper about only needing a 100 or so WSOs by 2020ish. Given the planned out of service date for GR4, post 2025 you will only be looking at WSOs on MRA4 (all 9 of them) and E-3D (E-3D planned OSD??). Many of those will either already be in the system, or entering it now......

[Melrin Dip]

Biggus

We don't drive capability on the basis on contracts for training, its excatly the reverse. Since no MFTS contract has been signed for EFT, BFT or AJT current numbers are irrelevant. MFTS ISD is 2015/16 well to the right of these savings options so in reality, and as has been said before, everything is on the table.

Additionally all need to remember the industrial element in any decision. There is still a requirement (political) to retain an aerospace (fixed and rotary wing), shipbuilding and high tech defence electronics industry. Any measure that affected the viability of each of these would likely not be taken.

MD

[Bismark]

thebword,

No emotion on my part I am afraid. The RN know all about critical mass requirements for force generation and transfer to new types and the Harrier Force was quite capable of generating the JCA requirement. The RN needed to build to about 80 pilots and the system, without hindrances, was perfectly capable of delivery. Unlike the RAF at the time the RN had a very clear understanding of the critical elements of success from initial selection to joining the trained strength. Unfortunately the RAF hierarchy at the time was determined to prevent such success and hence the RN approach to the USN - ie remove the cause of the blockage from any control over RN gains to the trained strength. The final attempt was the reduction of Force Elements of JFH (albeit they were on the RAF strength not RN). It is interesting to note that the once elite RAF Harrier boys feel totally abandoned by their top of the shop - sad.

[Grimweasel]

Any one else heard rumours of a one year posting ban? Surely that won't save huge sums? Must be a negligible sum when compared to carriers and scrapping entire fleets??

[Frustrated....]

Has everyone forgotten that the E3D is not being particularly useful at the moment. In fact the servicability rate is still shocking, as it has been on and off for the past few years.

If anything deserves the chop, why not the E3 fleet. Then you will have space at Waddo for the MRA4 which may prove more useful in the long term. After all, Typhoon could probably do just as well without it.

As for GR4, the are some massive obselesence issues in keeping it in service until 2025. The aren't the 1970's computing parts available any more to maintain it's systems and this will result in a fleet wide avionics upgrade which won't be cheap.

I say scrap GR4, C130J, E3 and FSTA. Let's face it, you proably won't see an FSTA on a towline as DTMA will get priority for use as a transport to save on charter fees. Put probe and drogue on A400 and use that as a tanker, keep JSF and sell as many Typhoons to the Middle East as possible.

Let's face it we cannot be a 1st team player anymore, we are too broke. Our membership of NATO needs to be our defence; an attack on one is an attack on all. That's what we pay for in all the cash that goes to NATO.

Frustrated....I sure am.

[15thManofTain]

It's very frustrating.

However, I too agree it might be time for the Swing Wing Death Bird to swing her wings for one final time and bow out gracefully when things are going well for her.

The GR4 has served us well, but with a realisation that we cannot continue to provide the defence capability we one enjoyed; something has to dip out.

The fact is that the GR4 is a very expensive beast, which can no longer hold it's own at the high end. If we can't play with the bigger boys, then we can't play at all.

The GR9 is the deaf, dumb and blind kid - but it does preserve capability for the future when times may be a little easier on the defence budget. I'm ex GR4, but the GR9 gets my vote. I see it like planting a tree - it's investing in the future for UK PLC.

Rough times ahead.

[thebword]

Bismark (we must stop meeting like this)

I had planned to gve you a long answer on each of your points, but it would be wasted (on both of us!). I just happen to believe that there needs to be something more than 2 small squadrons of Harriers between now and the arrival of JCA and MR Typhoon (about 2018). I understand why you make the arguments you do, but I don't think you have seen the unintended consequences of your force design (for they are far worse than just seen through the prism of trained maritime crews). I just hope that those making the decisions do, or I will be coming back here in a few years saying I told you so. The impact on the training pipeline, in particular, could be catastrophic, let alone the loss of capability at a critical period - if the News is anything to go by.

I will just have to accept that you believe that the RAF should have given up cockpits for the men and women they recruited and trained, just to help the RN's unsustainable manning model (although we have done just that) - it was so obviously an RAF plot to look after our own manning requirement; what were we thinking!

You are correct in saying that the GR9 crews remaining will feel very left down (in both Services), but no more so than the Sea Harrier, Jaguar and F3 crews that have gone before them as OSD and cuts approach; and Tornado GR4 will not be very far behind. It is always a very sad day as we see our combat power whittled away, but we will have to be hard nosed not emotional if we are to survive the next 8 years.

[LFFC]

Defence chiefs argue over 50,000 staff cuts (http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/articles/2010/07/defence-chiefs-argue-over-50000-staff-cuts.htm)

According to the Financial Times, the pressure to make cuts is exposing “clear fault lines” between the three services. One defence source told the paper: “This is a knife-fight in a telephone box and Saturday [24 July] was the first round before we regroup and go at it again.”

The Army has offered to cut back on fast jets and an aircraft carrier, in contrast to Navy efforts to keep the same carrier and the fleet of Harrier jets that use them. Meanwhile the Air Force is also fighting calls to cut the Tornado fleet.

However, personnel levels are expected to be cut by as many as 50,000 people - or a quarter - according to the Treasury, because personnel costs across the forces are such a large slice of the defence budget.

:eek:

Let's not forget that nearly a quarter of the MOD pay bill goes to civilians. During 2007/08, military pay accounted for £9.3b and civilian pay was £2.8b. Defence Statistics Bulletin 10 - Page 32 (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/apps/publications/pubViewFile.php?content=1200&date=2010-03-30&type=pdf&PublishTime=09:30:00)

Defence Personnel Totals 2009 (http://www.armedforces.co.uk/mod/listings/l0013.html)

UK Service Personnel - 187,210
UK Civilian Personnel - 86,970

So my guess is that at least a third of that 50,000 should be from the civil service, but if the unions stand their ground........

[Jimlad1]

Most civil servants I know are expecting cuts of about 20% to their head counts (a CS of roughly 65000). This is everything including the RFA, security guards, MPGS, all the teachers, training staff and support staff, plus industrial workers at the many bases and ammunition and storage deports out there. Its not just office workers!

Don't forget though that as its significantly more expensive to employ a service person than a CS, due to the much higher capitation rates, the savings gained from firing CS are minimal. You'll save in year, but not for much longer than that. Additionally many of the CS jobs are ex military roles that were civillianised to save money - thats why the CS seems so large, because the military footprint was transferred to save money years ago.