Help focus the cuts on the right areas

[VinRouge]

Spending Challenge (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spendingchallenge)


Ideas I put forward:

Move to flat rate system for subsistence expenses. Gets rid of admin cost and eliminates fraudulent claims.

Axe CHBS and allow individuals to book HOTAC themselves. Every pound under the "average" rate adds 50p to your IE.

Axe annual data protection act training

Axe GPC training

Axe "U Need 2 noe" and other nonsense in paper format, instead deploy on intranet for anyone sad enough to actually want to read it.

Same again for department magazines.

[Grimweasel]

1. Stop the wasteful 'annualrity' of defence spending. It's wasteful that we get 'late spends' where we have to get rid of £2M from failed RPC ventures just so that we get the money next year - the whole budgets for projects (esp Infra) needs looking at!

2. Ditch all the unaffordable ceremonial crap such as Guards units and Royal Horse Arty - it's a bygone era; forget it lads - move on - we have not used horses in true battle for some years and do we ever see any of the supposed tourist income that it generates? Wasteful in these lean times.

3. Cull the Civil service and get rid of the 'hangers on' that just 'exist' because people are too crap to use the restoring efficiency programme.

4. Build bloody Barracks and SFA in Central London, on MoD land and stop the millions being wasted on SSSA and SSSFA - why sell off Chelsea Barracks when we could have built service accn there? Same with all the waste at Abbey Wood - buy back RAF Locking and build accommodation!!!

5. Use / Rent out spare capacity on trucks and airframes that are travelling the world empty - how many C17/C130 fly back from Europe/USA empty? What a waste -advertise the empty space and charge companies to fill the aircraft!

6. Stop all the Stn Execs having their own cars just to drive from the patch and back? I mean, come on?? Bike you lazy sods!!!

7. Sell off Defence Estates and rent the land back in some PFI -do away with all the admin faff and let some big company deal with all our Infra needs

8. Amalgamate all MoD admin functions - we now have JPA so lets just have a joint admin corps / service - it would save millions in less bull$hit admin hierarchies!!

That should save a few quid and direct cash to where it's needed in the front-line!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Move to flat rate system for subsistence expenses. Gets rid of admin cost and eliminates fraudulent claims. Unfair to some as people would duck and weave to avoid expensive trips (expensive to them) an dsome other sap would be joed.

Axe CHBS and allow individuals to book HOTAC themselves. Every pound under the "average" rate adds 50p to your IE. Good idea except that HBS took the pain out of it. Any saving and benefit to the individual would be taxed.

Axe annual data protection act training annual is done on a CD, costs time not money. Agree bin the triennieal class room bit.

Axe GPC training is done on CD but I never bothered as it was mouse intensive and I got RSI. Shortly after GPC was withdrawn in DTE as they didn't trust us.

Axe "U Need 2 noe" and other nonsense in paper format, instead deploy on intranet for anyone sad enough to actually want to read it. YES

Same again for department magazines. YES, who reads them?

And for department public information leaflets. We had to do one 4 years ago. There was no quality assurance - two 'identical' sections had entirely different content when they should have been the same. No one took ownership and there was no annual or ever review for accuracy and currency.

[Pontius Navigator]

1. Stop the wasteful 'annualrity' of defence spending. It's wasteful that we get 'late spends' where we have to get rid of £2M from failed RPC ventures just so that we get the money next year - the whole budgets for projects (esp Infra) needs looking at! Absolutely - the path to nowhere across the field on an airfield that was to close - Lyneham

and work done on airfield and units when they know they are going to close but can't because the Minister hasn't signed off on the closure so unions have not been informed.

2. Ditch all the unaffordable ceremonial crap such as Guards units and Royal Horse Arty - it's a bygone era; forget it lads - move on - we have not used horses in true battle for some years and do we ever see any of the supposed tourist income that it generates? Wasteful in these lean times. MMMM

3. Cull the Civil service and get rid of the 'hangers on' that just 'exist' because people are too crap to use the restoring efficiency programme. Yes, and disestablish uniformed gapped posts. If you did without you can do without.

4. Build bloody Barracks and SFA in Central London, on MoD land and stop the millions being wasted on SSSA and SSSFA - why sell off Chelsea Barracks when we could have built service accn there? Same with all the waste at Abbey Wood - buy back RAF Locking and build accommodation!!! LOL, fact logic and reason - different budgets, PFI etc etc

6. Stop all the Stn Execs having their own cars just to drive from the patch and back? I mean, come on?? Bike you lazy sods!!! I heard they were going to tax them as company cars. BTW, who washes and DIs them?

7. Sell off Defence Estates and rent the land back in some PFI -do away with all the admin faff and let some big company deal with all our Infra needs Yes

8. Amalgamate all MoD admin functions - we now have JPA so lets just have a joint admin corps / service - it would save millions in less bull$hit admin hierarchies!! Nah, never work, just p1ss evryone off

PS, redraw the front line, Oh forgot, they are.

[indie cent]

Vin, you get my vote. I have a few of my own...

Serious question for those in the know: Under our "Code of Conduct", are we permitted to make suggestions outside the chain of command?

Nothing to stop us anonymously contributing I guess, just wonder where we stand officially before I jump in with both feet and a diving suit?

[dallas]

The Spams have a 'Fraud, Waste and Abuse' hotline across the US military - might even be a government scheme - and I've always thought something like this would have mileage, as well as a 'good ideas hotline' which bypasses the flawed thinking that rank equates directly to having the best ideas. Something broadly like the latter was circulated in about 2001 and ideas did seem to be pushed upwards.

I also agree entirely with financial longtermism as opposed to the annual panic budget holders seem to go through every March. Why a budget holder can't save up for a wanted item over several years is beyond me - perhaps the missing link is cash needs to be properly allocated as opposed to fully spent each FY.

[Roland Pulfrew]

7. Sell off Defence Estates and rent the land back in some PFI -do away with all the admin faff and let some big company deal with all our Infra needs Yes

For God sake NOOOOO!! Surely we have learned the lesson of selling off publicly owned property, that is an asset to the Nation, when we sold of all the MQs! In this route there only lies pain and huge cost to the military and the taxpayer for private profit.:ugh:

4. Build bloody Barracks and SFA in Central London, on MoD land and stop the millions being wasted on SSSA and SSSFA - why sell off Chelsea Barracks when we could have built service accn there? Same with all the waste at Abbey Wood - buy back RAF Locking and build accommodation!!!

Totally agree. And whilst we are at it, why don't we build some apartment blocks on Govt land and rent them to all the MPs. No SSSA and SSFA to be rented at exorbitant London rental rates and no second homes for MPs at public expense and we could save millions per year.

[tucumseh]

The Spams have a 'Fraud, Waste and Abuse' hotline across the US military - might even be a government scheme - and I've always thought something like this would have mileage, as well as a 'good ideas hotline' which bypasses the flawed thinking that rank equates directly to having the best ideas.

In theory, we have such schemes. For example, there is a Fraud Hotline but it is manned by relatively junior staffs and as there are so many cases of fraud being condoned by senior staffs and Ministers they are rather toothless / scared to take action above their pay grade. In 1994 I suspected a company of fraud (triple billing and not delivering goods). I sought advice and was told I’d better make sure of my facts; that I should conduct a mini-investigation and collate a report. The upshot was that my report was accepted by both the company and MoD Plod and the monies were recovered (via credit notes). But I was severely bollocked for carrying out this initial investigation when it was not my job (apparently). That attitude would put a lot of people off. To his credit, my boss (1 Star) backed me up, but he was told to wind it in.

Similarly, we have had suggestion schemes, like MIDAS and GEMS. But, again, if you report waste the chances are that it is you who will catch it, because of the same attitudes (“waste is no concern of ours”). Any suggestion that saves significant sums makes them topple. I’ve seen many suggestions from procurers rejected on the grounds that we’re not allowed to make suggestions affecting our own area of expertise and, in any case, it is an offence to implement the regulations designed to prevent waste. Again, this deters people. Director Internal Audit issued a report in 1996 recommending these regulations be implemented, but it was rejected and continued waste condoned.

It is the ethos that must change. People who do their job efficiently should no longer be regarded as an “embarrassment to the Department”. It used to be a promotion board question (to the grade below the lowest grade in DE&S). “How would you save 10% on any avionics programme (without degrading capability)?” More than 10 seconds to reply and you haven’t been paying attention. Today, the correct answer (1. Implement the permanent LTC Instructions and 2. Conduct Requirement Scrutiny) is understood by a mere handful and no-one dare try it for fear of censure and ridicule.

[Pontius Navigator]

Indie, CinC Strike, either Burridge or the one before, introduced a challenge team (at least one person). If you thought something could be done better, differently, or should not be done at all, then you could ring them and it would be investigated.

I did it a couple of times but things were so slow you never appreciated if anything happened and after a year - poof.

Then Sir Clive introduced the paperless office, but never the technology to support it. Supposed to save thousands in office furntiture and space.

Of course Parkinson's Law immediately kicked in and other work was created.

Then Rustication ............ that got the T&S bills up.

[Saintsman]

Perhaps a moritorium on change every time a new boss arrives.

Just putting their stamp on things costs money and we all know that 2 years later it'll change again. Plus every one knows a lot of the ideas don't work because they've already been done before.

[Argonautical]

Stop paying some benefits with money. Why can't the unemployed be paid with food/clothing vouchers ? These could be redeemed at any shop/supermarket but would not include tobacco, alcohol or electrical goods. If the unemployed wants to watch TV on a 42 " plasma then they will have to find work to earn the money.

[The Old Fat One]

Stop paying some benefits with money. Why can't the unemployed be paid with food/clothing vouchers ? These could be redeemed at any shop/supermarket but would not include tobacco, alcohol or electrical goods. If the unemployed wants to watch TV on a 42 " plasma then they will have to find work to earn the money.


I think the poster meant within the defence budget - nevertheless yours is an outstanding, and very progressive idea. I am amazed that it has not yet been muted by someone like Frank Fields for example.

[Pontius Navigator]

Stop paying some benefits with money. Why can't the unemployed be paid with food/clothing vouchers ? These could be redeemed at any shop/supermarket but would not include tobacco, alcohol or electrical goods. If the unemployed wants to watch TV on a 42 " plasma then they will have to find work to earn the money.

Nah, been tried. They are just flogged off on the black market for beer, booze, fags or some other sin at below face value.

Same if you actually gave them out as tins of food or clothes; they would finish up on eBay.

Now if you introduced mass catering of good quality, non-fattening foods, then they would have to eat or go hungry. Do clothing like clothing stores: cheap unfashionable clothing on a one-for-one exchange basis.

Clothes could have a catchy little logo (competition entries for the logo prize
£1 each) such as Freebie Fashions or Coalition Casuals:}

Maybe even a Freebie 26 inch flat screen TV that only operates after 6pm.

[The Old Fat One]

Flat rate allowances used to be cost effective, but modern IT systems (when--they--work!!!) have rendered that argument redundant. You don't need to analyse it...just look at what big successful, profit-making companies do. They are experts at cost-effectiveness. Most big companies pay actuals input through a system like SAP.

As PN points out, you cannot incentivise employees to make money by saving on allowances without incurring a tax burden on the individual, which would swiftly become a monumental pain in backside.

[The Old Fat One]

PN

I would try it again, with all the modern security techniques imbedded.

[Pontius Navigator]

TOFO,

There may be more secure ways for vouchers. Unfortunately there are people out there who are far cleverer than those at work who can circumvent the best security that money can buy.

Apart from the black market, vouchers could soon be counterfeited.

Had a thought on the unfashionable clothing, just realised that was a b0ll0cks idea. More of the public are wandering around in DPMs or fashion look-a-likes. At least the fashion for wearing NBC suits has died off, mainly because they have worn out.

[indie cent]

Haha, good thread this.

So, it seems we are virtually powerless to get money-saving ideas "shoved up" the chain of command.

Therefore, I visited the spending challenge and sent off some ideas with the caveat " I wish to remain anonymous to my organization" placed in the text...

Whilst I completely agree with many of the above ideas. e.g. Allowances should become flat rate and completely simplified, I'm not sure that we'd be able to offer a large enough saving to warrant close attention at this stage. The shocking thing about the previous government's wanton overspend is the scale (25%) of savings that are needed right now. The coalition government have a couple of months to sort this out.

I think it may be big ticket purchase items, branches, fleets and stations that need considering at this stage or we will be fiddling while Rome burns.

If we, at the coalface, don't put forward ideas; savings will be forced upon us, and the solutions may not be entirely sensible.... ! At least we have been asked by the coalition. There couldn't possibly be a lethal cocktail of self-interest, protectionism and backstabbing going on in the higher echelons...

errr...these are my own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer!!

[Chest Poker]

Cut-back on some 'Air-ships' in command..... We have far to many.

Close the Gym's.

Return to flat rate rates on det / deployment rather than crazy JPA system.

[Pontius Navigator]

Whilst I completely agree with many of the above ideas. e.g. Allowances should become flat rate and completely simplified, I'm not sure that we'd be able to offer a large enough saving to warrant close attention at this stage.

Allowance/T&S are always the easiest to hit and give the least painful (from an inventory POV) saving. That it is often nugatory to business and only temporary is always overlooked and have a big effect or moral and efficiency.

....

I think it may be big ticket purchase items, branches, fleets and stations that need considering at this stage or we will be fiddling while Rome burns.

But we know it will a cut in the unsexy maintenance budget (no painting) and not the tiffy, CVS, JSF, Dii, T45, SSBN that are offered up for sacrifice.

No Air Marshal got on a board of directors for paint or invisible ground-source
heat pumps.

We need to kill off the peripheral hangers-on like Enviros who take our JSP, fiddle with it, populate it, then charge us a whole bundle of cash when we have to re-write what they did. Then we put the Environmental Management System on the shelf to gather dust for ever more as the Cover Your Acer that originally signed up for it has moved on to retirement.

Or the bye-law revue team moving so slowly that bases close as they put up their new signs.

PS, forgot, a retired airship did sign up to a ground source heat pump.

[anotherthing]

2. Ditch all the unaffordable ceremonial crap such as Guards units and Royal Horse Arty - it's a bygone era; forget it lads - move on - we have not used horses in true battle for some years and do we ever see any of the supposed tourist income that it generates? Wasteful in these lean times.
I think you'll find that the Guards units and RHA work bloody hard and spend a hell of a lot of time in Afgahistan, outside the wire. As superbly illustrated in a documentary about 'Trooping the Colour' a few weeks ago. Your statement might not go down too well with several of the unit who returned minus limbs

[helo425]

Some more points that I have submitted

Sign young aircrew up for 20-25 years and not pay £100,000 retenson bonus.

Allow NCO Pilots and Navs.

Get rid of flying pay if you elect to take a ground job or are not able to fly.

Reduce the number of deployable HQs, and EAWs that do not acually go anywhere.

Perhaps the 100 year experiment should end soon. Perhaps the RAF the worlds first independant Air Force should be the first to dispand.

Crack on

[NutLoose]

Stop paying some benefits with money. Why can't the unemployed be paid with food/clothing vouchers ? These could be redeemed at any shop/supermarket but would not include tobacco, alcohol or electrical goods. If the unemployed wants to watch TV on a 42 " plasma then they will have to find work to earn the money.


In the Nutloose party

1/ Benefits would be paid in full for the first two years, after that they would reduce by 50% per six monthly intervals until they got the hint to get off their arses and get a job! what ever it paid, it would then remove the I am not working for that out of the equation...

2/ They would also be required on their 2 years of full benefits to do 3 days community work ( they do need time to find employment as well) this would involve litter picking, road sweeping, graffiti removal etc..... you get the gist of it, failure to comply would result in item 1 being brought fwd to that date.

3/ Crimes involving theft, damage, "joyriding" vandalism would be costed and as with drug related crime where assets are seized from drug dealers, assets would be seized from the above to repay the damages caused, if assets do not add up to the cost involved, monies would be deducted at source from wages / benefits as per the CSA until as such time the cost has been refunded.....

4/ The trick of Illegal immigrants hiding their docs, therefore stopping deportation, they would be detained, an Island several miles off Scotland (15 would do) would be selected, these people would then be given basic tools to build a croft and crops seeds and an animal, such as a cow, sheep or goat, and would be settled on there and be left to get on with it until such time they decide to return home... NO benefits would be provided.

And while the Nutloose party are at it.

5/ The Human Rights laws would be rewritten to remove Illegal Immigrants, Prisoners etc.....

6/ The anti- terrorism one would be re written to remove some of the police powers, (arresting a schoolgirl out on a field trip with her school under anti terrorism laws for photographing the railway station they were visiting just brings the whole system down....)


:E

[Unchecked]

Gets my vote, even though I think 2 years on benefits is still too generous for some.

Maybe I could be deputy PM in a coalition? Call it the Nutschecked Alliance.

[Grimweasel]

I think you'll find that the Guards units and RHA work bloody hard and spend a hell of a lot of time in Afgahistan, outside the wire. As superbly illustrated in a documentary about 'Trooping the Colour' a few weeks ago. Your statement might not go down too well with several of the unit who returned minus limbs

Agreed on that anotherthing - what I meant is the net effect of having to support that kind of thing on the rest of the Army - whilst they are doing that others will be covering training/ops etc - the front line manpower is vital and I just don't think we can afford all the ceremonial side any more. That also goes for service ceremonial dress. Ditch it and just have one set of uniform such as fatigues, combats whatever you wish to call it. While we are at it, ditch Super Lynx and just carry on using the newly upgraded Puma as your Battle Field lift capability and transfer that to the Army - The RAF concentrates on heavy lift via 1 a/c type - the Chinook.

Of course what they should really do is claim back all the bonuses paid to bankers last year that was effectively syphoned off (via QE) from the taxpayer and into their bank accounts via the stock market. Greatest Ponzi scheme ever - treat the cause of the problem not the symptom!

[Unchecked]

Bravery & sacrifice aside, all the ceremonial, heritage and public face stuff are what sets our armed forces apart from the rest. The benefits to national income through tourism, industry and national pride far outweigh their costs and should never disappear. Anyone advocating cuts to the Guards, Reds, BBMF and the like should focus more on these benefits and less on the £'s IMHO.

[vortexadminman]

2. Ditch all the unaffordable ceremonial crap such as Guards units and Royal Horse Arty - it's a bygone era; forget it lads - move on - we have not used horses in true battle for some years and do we ever see any of the supposed tourist income that it generates? Wasteful in these lean times. mmm That sort of crap comment will quite rightly invite Army and Navy bods to reply. Ditch the BBMF forget it lads it s a bygone ere!!!

[Unchecked]

The forces need their public faces more than ever, not just marching on homecomings in desert fatigues. As much as Afghanistan should be high profile, the public should also be very aware of the other things we do, or it leads to ill-informed halfwits on radio phone ins declaring that we need troops and not navies or air forces.

[ZuluMike]

How does £25,000 for 6 dog kennels grab you? For serving personnel to keep private pets in during the working day. Within the last 18 months, and I'm not joking.

Someone is also paying to put a gadget in white fleet vehicles which displays an amber or red light if you drive slightly 'dangerously' (eg, accelerate), with a 20 sec delay of course. I'm not opposed to road safety, but... how much does this sort of project cost? Headed up by an Army Major, and supported by travelling roadshow and leaflets explaining how the gadgets work (or not explaining, I should say - however, the helpful leaflet does spend a paragraph talking about human rights and the "right to light" - again, not joking - in a leaflet about driving techniques). Anyone at DE&S want to tell us how much DRIVES is costing?

I didn't know I had a right to light. I hope the PJHQ bunker is aware of this right.

[Unchecked]

Yep, that's exactly the cr@p that needs to go, ZM.

Did anyone see the PM mention the £2.4m 'peace pods' recently installed in the FO at PMQ's today? Astonishing. :ugh:

[ZuluMike]

Would also like to say I'm a big fan of the ceremonial stuff. The Household Cavalry etc who put on these Trooping of the Colour events serve their time on ops like everyone else, and when they're at home...how useful are most operations-focussed units? They train like everyone else.

I've worked with them on ops, and the ceremonial duties are part of their intrinsic character, it is their means of instilling discipline and duty and teamwork in their troops - ever considered how easy it is to get a bunch of 18 year old inner city lads to stay up all night, every night for weeks bulling leather harnesses? Or how important team work is to coordinate the complex ceremonies. The immense sense of pride felt when they play an important part in such an event is part and parcel of what makes them a cohesive fighting unit in stressful combat. I don't suppose parading horses is a significantly more costly an activity than driving around Salisbury plains in tanks or IFVs or building tipods with pine-poles.

I know we're broke, but any civilized country needs to retain a little bit of heritage. Get rid of govt-sponsored arts programmes before BBMF or cavalry. The Reds now - what are they for? Last time I checked we hadn't been short of pilot applicants since forever. Jehovah!

[frodo_monkey]

Sign young aircrew up for 20-25 years and not pay £100,000 retenson bonus.

Isn't it retention? ;) But yes, agreed.

Allow NCO Pilots and Navs.

Don't really see how this saves money - the pay is the same, trg costs must be there or thereabouts the same... If anything, writing the paperwork for it is going to be a pain in the backside and cost money, then you'd need to build more Sgts' Messes to cope?

Get rid of flying pay if you elect to take a ground job or are not able to fly.

Isn't that the current case? IIRC if you volunteer for a second desk job after being stitched for one, you lose the money - and same if you are perma-downgraded?

Reduce the number of deployable HQs, and EAWs that do not acually go anywhere.

Yep, fully agree - looks great on paper, pointless in reality in my experience.

Perhaps the 100 year experiment should end soon. Perhaps the RAF the worlds first independant Air Force should be the first to dispand.

Disband? ;) Guess you're in the AAC or the 'boat people'? Again, surely this will COST money in the short-term, and I'm not sure if it saves money in the long term.

Crack on

My answers in red...

[BEagle]

How does £25,000 for 6 dog kennels grab you? For serving personnel to keep private pets in during the working day. Within the last 18 months, and I'm not joking.

Please elaborate on this allegation. Kennels for working dogs, whether explosive sniffers, drug dogs or basic wooly alligators are entirely justifiable, but for private pets??

Generally there is nothing in the UK Armef Forces left to 'cut'. So all this robbing Peter to pay Paul internecine cr@p needs to stop. Of course we should still have ceremonial duties outside Buck House and the Andrew should still spread British influence and pink gin around the world with their cockersPs, just as we taxpayers are still happy to pay for the BBMF and the Reds.

Expensive modernist oil paintings in the mad MoD-box are most certainly inappropriate, however.

[ZuluMike]

Yes, private pets. :eek: Money from 'quality of life' budget.

[BEagle]

Precisely where are these pooch palaces to be built?

Name and shame!!

Hopefully the lurking journos will have a field day with this one....:hmm:

[vecvechookattack]

We could save a fortune by taking the Puma out of service early.....

[Gnd]

Vev, only went to page 2 to say that - foiled!! the big 4 hey???

I say get a proper contractor for SLA, apparently £60k plus for one SLA bedspace!!!!!!!!!!!! Vev???

[Charlie Time]

Hard to ditch 'Super Lynx' when the MoD isn't buying it.

[vecvechookattack]

Exactly.....the MOD already has Super Lynx so its a bit too late for that.

But why do we need a Puma HC Mk 2...? Lets bin that project.... Withdraw the Puma Mk 1 from Service and maintain the Merlin and Chinook. If the RAF were to keep Merlin and Chinook then why bother with a Puma?


I do think that the Wildcat project is looking very iffy though....we should save the money andf upgreade the existing aircraft to the Mk9a standard....

[VinRouge]

Theprior,

+1.

The government are looking at outsourcing to open source, if anyone has used openBSD, redhat etc or the like, many OS's out there provide software with better security and UI than windoze.

Oh, the servers are free too. Agree with the Ped Flt idea.

[Pontius Navigator]

Agree with the Ped Flt idea.

And use cash saved there to contract the gym out to Fitness First or the like. Let them sell limited numbers of membership to Joe Public too.

The non-Public gym at Coningsby worked very well. Lots of people were prepeared to pay to use the facilities depsite the free gym palace nearby - wonder why?

[newbiep]

Become the biggest cap badge of the army and suck it up

Get rid of Typhoon

Scrap BBMF and Reds

Use the NHS - only have TA medics

Stop white fleet vehicle use, if you can't get to a meeting in a landrover, then use your own car or a bike.

Get rid of education centres in the RAF, TDOs are pointless there is a minimum educational requirement to join

Scrap resettlement...it's not prison no one needs to be rehabilitated, go and find your own new career...not difficult google it.

[Could be the last?]

Scrap UKMFTS -

The trg system currently in place works (it has evolved over 90+ years!), except for the fact that the ac are on their last legs. Use a fraction of the money to procure the ac or if you have too, lease them. Paying the contractor an obscene amount of money and then doing all the work for them is tantamount to fraud. Invest wisely and build in excess so that we can sell the trg to the global market and keep the profits to re-invest in ourselves. It is no different to what the company is going to do anyway!!

Scrap FSTA -

If we are staying in the sandpit we will face the same issues as we had with the C-17 and end up paying through the nose for all the work that needs to be done outside of the original contract. PFIs for operational ac does not work!!!!

Scrap SARH -

Move the Merlin MK3 fleet to the SARF. Everyone knows that the Army want the big lift capability of the CH47. Current SARF has a fleet of approx 26 Seakings a one for one swap with the Merlin Force. More importantly, AW have now ironed out most of the issues with the ac and this would be an effective expansion of the fleet. AW would build a fully marinized version for CHF, not a bodge job on the current ac. (Industry supported in the UK/a reduction in the number of ac types requiring trg (OCUs and simulators already in place at the MSHAFT)/keeps SAR Mil (RN & RAF) reduces the financial risk of another potential PFI/RBS cock up)

Scrap Puma 2 -

Use the cash for a smaller fleet of SuperPumas and direct their efforts to the dark side!

Invest -

Pay the going rate for a decent law firm to stop the MOD getting turned over by the various cowboys we seem to continually do business with!

Helicopter Command -

One command that covers all RW activity. (JHC/SARF/CHF/Fleet)

:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

1. Support to RIAT - no more free military labour - save millions

2. No more town shows.

These are generally 'free-labour' and uncosted so stopping would not save money just give people more free time.

You might have added:

Wimbledon, do the RAF still provide ushers?

There are several other events too where personnel volunteer to serve. Again generally FOC and they volunteer as a diversion from work. Of course it throws a burden on those still at work but would not save money.

All airshows with creative accounting.

War-walks!

Exped training in the Maldives etc.

Adventure training unless you go to places relevant to current Ops - that leaves out Ascension Island.

[Unchecked]

So between spending 7 months out of every 15 in sandy places on PDT or Ops, I now have to conduct my AT in these 'relevant' sandy areas?

Why don't we just move all our forces out of the UK, sell off all the estates and we can all live in Bastion & Kandahar. That'll save a packet.

[Wrathmonk]

Unchecked

Like it .... worked in Northern Ireland for 30 odd years. Could have three year accompanied tours as well:E.

[Unchecked]

Yeah, and if the missus' dons a burkah and hibab, then I can make massive cuts to her shopping allowance :ok:

[minigundiplomat]

So between spending 7 months out of every 15 in sandy places on PDT or Ops, I now have to conduct my AT in these 'relevant' sandy areas?

I find it difficult to reconcile this question. If you are spending 7 out of 15 months on ops, why do you need to go abroad at taxpayers expense to learn leadership, or increase your confidence?

Surely ops affords the same opportunities as AT in regard to personal development.

I may be wrong, but your question leads me to believe that:

A. All the previous blah given as justification for AT is bolleaux, and you just wish to go skiing/parachuting etc overseas at the taxpayers expense, at a time when it is unaffordable.....

or

B. You need to get out more whilst on ops.


I appreciate that AT is a good thing, and ideal when there are no ops on which to develop yourself. However, the sandy place provides plenty of challenges, and the economic climate is such that these nice to haves will have to go to pay for the essentials.

[Pontius Navigator]

MGD, you took my TIC comment and gave a very valid and serious answer. If unchecked does have the time for AT after his spell in the sandpit, his post-op leave, and his pre-op deployment training then AT in Morocco would be more valuable than AT in the Maldives which would look very much like tax-payer funded R&R.

Now if it was actually billed as post-op R&R then go for it.

[Tourist]

The last place you should try to save money is on things that keep people happy.
Conversely they could save a lot of money in the long term by spending more on quarters, AT, gyms, private schools, fun etc.
The biggest cost is training people. Every serviceman who doesn't want to leave saves a fortune.
Large, successful companies know this, which is why Microsoft, for example, have such fantastic terms and conditions (free daycare on site etc). People are happy and thus more productive and flexible in every way, plus will do anything to remain in the job, knowing there is nowhere better to work.

[Unchecked]

Definitely A. Work hard, Play hard, i think they used to call it.

Now it's just Work hard.

[Pontius Navigator]

Unchecked Tourist, both spot on.

My anti-AT bit was slightly TiC. The point though is that fun bit only seems to be available to those that don't have the work hard bit to do. The fun isn't spread evenly, unlike the sh1t which spreads over all those who remain behind.

Story:

We used to be awarded an AOCs stand-down. A complete stand-down with everybody having a complete day off at the same time.

Last time 1 Gp suggested we had the AOCs stand-down spread over several days so we would not lose a day's work. Pointed out that if 10% of the work force stood down on each day the remaining workers would have to do 110% of the work that day. End result no one got any realistic stand-down. Simplistic but we managed the proper day off added to a bank holiday. working time lost was only 4 hours rather than a full day but it led to a happier work force.

[Biggus]

Tourist,

Given that the common belief is that all the military services will be shedding people post the SDR to save money, then perhaps "keeping people happy" isn't a high priority amongst the senior neddies....

Short sighted maybe, and I'm not saying that it is my point of view, but being in a situation where people are willing to volunteer to leave will avoid all the headlines about compulsory redundancies!

In a years time, when policemen, nurses, etc are losing their jobs, then if a newspaper runs a story about a supposedly "taxpayer funded" trip for military personnel to go diving in the Far East say.........bad PR or what!

[Unchecked]

Even via a media that presumes to claim a fairer deal for our armed forces? Besides, most AT I've been involved isn't completely funded by the taxpayer, I know we pay a fraction of a civvy, but we do pay into this ourselves, too.

[minigundiplomat]

I never said AT was a bad thing; it is however, inappropriate at the present time.

[vecvechookattack]

I managed to grab some AT last year.... For the week it cost me £ 245 and it cost the Navy £18.47 + £20 incidentals.

The benefit that this gave me by far exceeded the £ 38.47 I claimed of Madge

[Pontius Navigator]

Unchecked, only half the answer. People have difficulty finding time for leave. Others go on AT. Who covers the gap?

[charliegolf]

Boarding School Allowance?

How many children are boarding these day because of the disruption to their education caused by the constant moving around of mums and or dads?

CG

PS Were there ever day schoolers paid for out of BSA? That would be an interesting thing to justify.

[cornish-stormrider]

PN - your sums might be a bit out with your 110%, good idea but let us assume you are in a section of five, with one off your workload goes to 125% - in the olden days where the productive time was reckoned to be 60% of flat out capacity you could spare a bit for the surge.

Then the mil embraced LEAN (and did it very badly), NOW YOU'RE ALL FORKED. ( Coz the spoon supplier went from JIT to JTFL)

what can we cut, secondary duties that take place while doing your primary task perhaps, I saw engineers spending more time running the SIF bouncy castle or the tea bar than doing their job. Definitely any new IT bolleaux that has not been proven by customers, I use sage, others use SAP, you all get JPA.....

This AT and Exped stuff - this was part of the perks when you joined, it is your right to apply for it. I did notice a correlation between those who did AT and those who drank lots, the more you drank and pitched in looking like you slept in a hedge the less AT you did.

A word of advice to bosses, if you have airmen who regularly work the job and not the clock and always do that little bit of overtime just to help out, make sure they get rewarded....
One volunteer is worth 10 pressed men.

[pamac51]

I was talking to a recently retired FC/Scopie type the other day and his view was to get rid of the lot of them - what do they do all day!

[vecvechookattack]

Boarding School Allowance?

How many children are boarding these day because of the disruption to their education caused by the constant moving around of mums and or dads?


Thats a good point. I know at least 4 guys who work at a Somerset establishment but board their Children in Sherborne. Thats wrong isn't it?



I was talking to a recently retired FC/Scopie type the other day and his view was to get rid of the lot of them - what do they do all day!

Pretty much the same as the Puma force..... That lot are on borrowed time

[AdanaKebab]

pamac51: Ok I'll bite ... the clue is in my name! :ugh: ... who do you think says "scramble scramble scramble" .. AND that's not nearly all we do. Ask a few of our brown brethren who are happy to see an aircraft over them during a firefight in Afghanistan .. organised by .....:cool:

[vecvechookattack]

who do you think says "scramble scramble scramble


I know, I know....its the coastguard

[DICKY the PIG]

Get rid of the "Toner save mode" on the blasted printermebobs! It's meant to save toner and paper, but actually uses twice as much because nobody can read the first print because it's too bloody faint!

[teeteringhead]

Do RAF chefs/stewards still staff Chequers ......?

[vecvechookattack]

Get rid of the "Toner save mode" on the blasted printermebobs! It's meant to save toner and paper, but actually uses twice as much because nobody can read the first print because it's too bloody faint!

You can change the settings that you print.... Go to Printer settings and set it to normal.




BBC News - Departments told to draw up plans for 40% spending cuts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10500081.stm)


MOD ringfenced from drastic cuts

[rock34]

A very swift look through the thread and I've a couple of points:

1. No mention of removing flying pay :\ (that i could see!). Shocking no doubt to the master race ;), but an unnecessary expense. No doubt couldn't be done for those in now, but scrap it for those about to join. Save a packet and yes, they will still want to join to fly fast jets about the sky. I expect AFPS 10 (or similar) to come in soon, change this at the same time.

2. Scrap the ceremonial units (Guards, QCS etc)? The same ceremonial units that still do a 6 month tour in Afghanistan (and did them in Iraq too)..... Know your facts - PD's is merely part of the job, they are operational units first and foremost!!!

3. Someone mentioned scrapping PEd flts and having a 'passport' scheme signed off by a civie PTI. Can see the idea, but who signs it off when I go for a run at home? Too many holes in that idea IMHO.

[Wrathmonk]

Of course if Mr Hague is to be believed and we pull most, if not all combat troops from AFG in 2014, leaving just the trg teams behind (under the protection of the ANA), and if we grit our teeth until said date, we could disband the RAF Regt lock, stock and barrel - it's not like there is going to be any appetite for "expeditionary ops" for some considerable time. MPGS / RAFP guard the main gate and the NAAFI. Save a fortune - could even allow for an increase in flying pay to retain / recruit all those joining the re-energised civil market, with cash left over for some more Typhoons/carriers/JSF to protect the sea and air lanes around Fortress Britain :E

[vecvechookattack]

If it's broke don't fix it! | News Of The World (http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/865819/If-its-broke-dont-fix-it.html)


Big savings will also have to be found in the DEFENCE budget. The MoD is looking at one option that would see ground troop numbers cut by 20 per cent, troop formations from 98 to 80, major vessels cut from 57 to 45 and aircraft numbers from 760 to 550-600.

[pumaengineer]

How about re-instating all those Shineys, Coppers and Gunners who were unjustifiably 'bumped up' to the higher pay band in recent years back to the lower pay band?

[Pontius Navigator]

Unchecked, it was partly TiC.

We once, and it is a long time ago but shows it still ongoing, had someone denied the day off for tennis as he was required for duty. We were over-ridden by a 2* and had to joe someone else to fill in.

This made the subsequent chinagraph line move but was a complete waste of effore for us as it negated the team training that we should have undertaken.

[Trim Stab]

Make pensions payable only from national retirement age. This has already happened in other parts of the public sector. It would also make staffing levels more flexible - people could leave and rejoin more easily.

Structure the forces so people are not obliged to move so often - encourage them to take responsibility for their own homes - thereby reducing accommodation costs and reducing the need for schools allowances.

[NutLoose]

Make No1's a two colour uniform as the Germans and some of the US have, the jacket remaining the same but the trousers say go black, that way replacing a uniform becomes simply a part change issue, if you standardised on say black then you could have them as standard for both RAF and Army :p

but first get rid of the Scottish and Welsh assemblies......... money pits, that were previously done by Parliament

[Rigger1]

Not that long ago I worked with a guy who had held the same rank & seniority as me and who was never at work, 1 day a week at college, doing what I was doing in my own time, one afternoon a week for rugby (and that was if it was a home match, otherwise it would be a day or more off), a few more hours for rugby training, and rugby club meetings , and then came the regular AT.

We both passed our identical higher qualifications at the same time but guess who got promoted first , and guess who knew bugger all about their primary role and the aircraft. These plebs must be cut, yes I can see the value of AT and sports but there are, or certainly were a great many of these people around. What is their primary role .... not bloody rugby, oh and occasionally, and this is true, he was allowed in late because the after game piss up was part of the sport and he couldn’t work on the jet with a hangover according to our Sqn Ldr, who was hardly there because of .. you guessed it Rugby!!!!! Once you’ve got rid of the ‘Sport Billys’ you could cut some PTI’s
RANT MODE OFF.

[Wyler]

A request for 2 days travel (own car) and subsistence for a visit to another station to attend a meeting, that would directly affect trg, was turned down due to cost: £210.00.

Fg Off from same office put in receipts totalling £4500.00 for his AT: Surfing in California.

Ok Ok, different budgets etc but it does beggar belief sometimes.

[vecvechookattack]

Why is it that the only people moaning and dripping about TA, Sport and having to complete the annual Fitness test are RAF chaps...You fellas will be moaning about having to wear a uniform next

[Wyler]

Because we are far better educated than the other two?:E

[Biggus]

We have all come across things during our time in the military that we consider a waste of money, resources, etc, no doubt coloured by our individual perspectives. Getting rid of each of these may only save a small amount of money, but in an organization that is trying to reduce any remaining fat, ever little helps - an more importantly it also sets a tone, both internally and externally.

I offer the following as some examples for savings, but admit I may well not be in possession of all the facts:


I believe that CAS used to have a personal chef. If that is true, and still the case, why? The head of TESCO doesn't have a personal chef, and is in charge of more personnel, assets, etc....

The RAF has its own polo association! RAF Polo Association - Homepage (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafpolo/)


The RAF has a lawn tennis association with some very impressive facilities. RAF Lawn tennis Association - Tennis Centre Facilities (http://www.raf.mod.uk/raflawntennis/Administration/tenniscentrefacilities.cfm)


Now I don't know whether things like the polo and lawn tennis associations are largely self funded, and provide a minimal drain on the public purse, but the idea that the RAF has an "official" polo association at a time when we are about to cut front line manpower to me sends all the wrong messages.......

But that is merely my opinion, and as you may have guessed, I don't play lawn tennis or polo!;)

[Pontius Navigator]

VV, fitness test, pray tell what the dark blue have to do?

As for green, it is their job although I have seen plenty dressed for comfort and not for speed.

[Biggus]

Vec,

Because we are more critical of waste in our service than the RN and Army perhaps....?



Polo : Sports and Adventure Training : RN Life : Training and People : Royal Navy (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/training-and-people/rn-life/sports-and-adventure-training/polo/)


Tennis : Sports and Adventure Training : RN Life : Training and People : Royal Navy (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/training-and-people/rn-life/sports-and-adventure-training/tennis/)

[Roland Pulfrew]

I believe that CAS used to have a personal chef. If that is true, and still the case, why? The head of TESCO doesn't have a personal chef, and is in charge of more personnel, assets, etc....

Something to do with hosting visiting chiefs of air staffs, VIPs and dignitaries perhaps? What do you expect him to do, cook for himself and his guests whilst hosting visiting VIPs?

And do you actually know that the head of Tesco doesn't have a personnel chef? I'm sort of guessing (as you are) that the head of Tesco, or for that matter any large scale business, will do its entertaining through corporate hospitality, probably in some Michelin stared restaurant!!

And according to today's Sunday Express (I know not entirely the most reliable source) and the Scottish version to boot:



A SCOTTISH RAF base is facing closure and up to 20,000 jobs will be put at risk as the first concrete details emerge of Britain’s biggest defence shake-up in years.

Senior coalition Government sources confirmed a number of bases across the UK will be considered for the axe, including both Lossiemouth and Kinloss, on the Moray Firth.

Lossiemouth is the most likely to close, in a blow that would devastate the economy across the north of Scotland. Kinloss has the upper hand as it would make a suitable base for the new Joint Strike Fighter.

A £5billion project to build two new aircraft carriers in Fife and on the Clyde is also being targeted in the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) as ministers try to balance the books.

The Sunday Express has learned that one option will be to delay the second ship by several years, putting thousands of jobs on hold.

The news confirms months of speculation about the possible extent of the defence cutbacks north of the Border.
MoD officials are facing a £36billion budget shortfall and have been ordered to cut costs by Defence Secretary Liam Fox, who will ultimately decide where the axe should fall.

But a Whitehall source confirmed that the MoD “was thinking the unthinkable” and considering reducing the number of RAF bases. Officials have agreed that to lose at least one in Scotland “would make sense” with RAF Lossiemouth understood to be at the head of a preliminary list.

Close to 3,000 military and civilian personnel would be directly affected by the closure but the impact would also be felt in the local community.

A recent study showed the two Moray Firth bases supported more than 7,000 jobs and generated £76million for the local economy every year.

SNP Westminster leader and defence spokesman Angus Robertson MP insisted that any planned closures would be “fought tooth and nail”.

He said: “That huge cuts are being planned is deeply alarming, not least because our forces already feel overstretched and under resourced. These cuts would seriously diminish operational capabilities as well as hurt communities like Moray.

“The fact is that the UK Government is already responsible for a £4.3billion defence underspend in Scotland between 2002 and 2007, and 9,500 defence jobs were lost in Scotland when Labour were in power.

“Downing Street keeps making the wrong choices on cuts – whether it is cutting vital manpower, aircraft and bases while blowing billions on a new generation of Trident nuclear weapons. These underline just how out of touch London can be.”

Officials are also considering delaying the second of two giant CVF carriers to be built at a number of shipyards, including the BAE Systems at Scotstoun, in Glasgow, and assembled at Rosyth Royal Dockyard, on the Forth.

A senior industry source said: “I think the SDR is kicking around several alternatives. “One is to fit the second ship with a catapult so you don’t need to buy short take-off and landing Joint Strike Fighters but conventional aircraft.

“The plan would also be accompanied by slipping the second ship considerably to the right [delaying it] by a few years. You could also make the carrier a helicopter carrier replacing HMS Ocean.”

Work began last year on the HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first of the 65,000-ton aircraft carriers, which are to be the flagships of Britain’s future naval strike force.

But as well as facing delays in construction, the second – HMS Prince of Wales – could even be shared with the French Navy under one proposal.

But John Park, Labour MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, said the contracts must not be altered as they are “vital” in terms of employment. He added: “The contracts are worth up to £3billion to the Scottish economy.

“You are looking at upwards of 6,000 people working over the course of the contract. But the opportunities are not just for people directly involved. The numbers multiply to the wider economy with companies in the supply chain supplying goods and services.

“Between 10,000 and 15,000 jobs could go as a result. But the impact would be felt not just in Rosyth or Glasgow but all around Scotland.”

Mr Park, a former Rosyth dockyard employee, claimed it would not come as a surprise if the coalition decided to swing the axe hard north of the Border. He said: “We have had these Conservative cuts in the past and in Fife in particular.

“A couple of hundred million pounds were to be spent on the Trident refit contract in 1993 but the Conservatives decided to cut that so it wouldn’t surprise us if anything was going to happen that was going to have a negative impact on Scotland in terms of the SDR.”

Defence experts are sceptical whether the plans will achieve the desired savings, but agreed some of the plans are well thought out.

Peter Felstead, editor of Jane’s Defence Weekly, said: “The option to have the second CVF as a helicopter platform does make more sense.

“And RAF base rationalisation also makes sense.”


Have they perhaps got their Kin-Loss-iemouths confused???

[Pontius Navigator]

But as well as facing delays in construction, the second – HMS Prince of Wales – could even be shared with the French Navy under one proposal.

In that case she'd have a good cellar.

[Biggus]

Roland,

On the few occassions when CAS hosts VIPs then either an RAF chef comes along for the day to do the cooking, or the "entertaining" is done in a mess somewhere, etc. Rather than employ a chef 365 days a year for the few (becoming fewer as we reduce costs?) time he "entertains". Maybe VIPs need to learn to be "entertained" a bit less in these (globally) more austere times?

As for the Sunday express article. Lossiemouth is already a fast jet base, is due to recieve JSF when we get it into service, has HAS facilities, etc. Kinloss is a multi engine aircraft base, with no current aircraft, and due to recieve a total of 9! More importantly, Kinloss has a geese problem that directly effects aircraft operations, are you going to put a single engine aircraft into a base with a bird problem? So, as you seem to suggest, perhaps they have got Kinloss and Lossiemouth the wrong way around.

I had heard that Leuchars was the most logical to go. Land in a good location for housing viz Dundee and Edinburgh, with a railway station. I heard that a lot of money would need to be spend on Leuchars to make it suitable for Typhoon, but it hasn't been spent yet. Close Leuchars, sell the land, move Typhoons to Lossie for northern Q, approx 100nm nearer the bad guys, and reduce the GR4 fleet by a couple of Sqns (Lossie ones) to save money and make way for Typhoon.......

Seems logical to me, but no doubt it won't happen, and one of the Moray bases will close on the basis that the area already has 2 bases, so taking one away won't have such a massive impact as closing the only base in one area!

[vecvechookattack]

VV, fitness test, pray tell what the dark blue have to do?

We have to do the Fitness test. Every year... Otherwise we don't go forward to the promotion board ..... If you fail the fitness test you don't get promoted.

[Pontius Navigator]

Vec, thank you, but do you also manadated to do 3 periods of exercise each week. I note you also say that your sanction is you do not get promoted whereas in the RAF you won't get paid if you see what I mean.

[vecvechookattack]

And quite right too. If you are not fit enough to serve in the Armed Forces then why should you get paid? Being in the Armed Forces is a tough, demanding job which expects the highest levels of physical and mental fitness. If you cannot keep up then step aside and allow someone who can join in.

[Spanish Waltzer]

I think what the UK military needs now, from the top down, is to work together to ensure a joined up approach to the budget cuts rather than a willy waving competition as to who has the most stringent fitness test or AT programme :ugh:

Why cant the mil leaders, faced with unprecedented financial pressure do the same as a civilian CEO would. Get together with the executive team & make the tough choices, then go to the the budget holder with a properly costed & agreed shopping list showing how much they need for each present and future project/programme and make it simple that if the money is not there then the mil cant afford & wont continue with that project or programme. Then the politicians need to decide what they want the mil to do within the realms of what they can afford & pay accordingly...Hey we do this sort of shopping exercise with primary children when teaching them basic math & money lessons and they seem to grasp it fairly quickly...

Even more important now the leaders have adopted a zero tolerance to risk taking in light of recent enquiries etc. Not taking risk costs money. There is no money. Therefore the do more with less strategy WILL fail. Simple....isn't it?

[PostMeHappy]

Kinloss has the upper hand as it would make a suitable base for the new Joint Strike FighterApart from Kinloss being discounted over Lossiemouth as a JSF base due to the bird-strike risk...only one JCA engine as against Nimrod's 4.....I don't think MAA will overlook that.

[Biggus]

PMH,

See post 89........:ugh:

[glad rag]

Any figures on what £ Leuchers generates in landing fees per annum??

[minigundiplomat]

Sacking CAS's chef, or chopping the odd PTI will not generate the required savings.

A culture of fiscal responsibility is required. We all know of waste, and those that don't are living in lah lah land, or are FC's!

[AdanaKebab]

Wyler: will you bite or shall I? :rolleyes:

[minigundiplomat]

Sorry,


couldn't resist, banter intended for humour use only. Thanks for hosting us so well at Waddo over the weekend.

Stay safe.

[NURSE]

Maybe there are a few things that might help: Medical services are effectivly doing the same job so why have 3 of them? Or in case of Army why have 3 separate corps? Medical,Dental & Nursing? yes amalgamation will save maybe a few million but its still a few million saved.
Cut 32Sqn back to supporting senior officers and Royals and ban politicians and civil servants from using it.
How many of HM Forces are undeployable? a Reservist who goes on FTRS is payed X factor at a rate dependent on his/her deployable status so fully deployable gets full X factor, Home only gets it at reserve rates and Un deployable doesn't get any. Maybe that should be applied.

[vecvechookattack]

Nurse - those are good points but I think that you maybe missing the point....rather than amalgamating the nursing, dentist, medical corps of all 3 services....why not get rid of the lot? Why do we need so many doctors and nurses? why are dentists considered officers?....they are hardly doctors..... why not rely on the NHS?

[163627]

I'm all in favour of culling unnecessary civilian "fat" but isn’t it time to have a detailed look at the apparent rank inflation that now appears endemic across all services. As our capability has decreased the rank required to undertake a particular role has often increased, as has the bureaucracy needed to provide support. For example, now just a maximum of nine Nimrod MRA4 airframes, so taking into account trials and deep maintenance probably no more than seven available at any time? So are two (120 & 201) operational squadrons plus one (42[R]) training unit all really necessary? Each squadron presumably commanded by a Wing Commander, together with a dedicated fully operational airbase (commanded by a Group Captain?) and all that entails. As to rank/role if an ACC Major is able to command an operational Apache squadron why does the RAF need a Wing Commander and the RN a Commander? Particularly as until very recently FAA squadrons were always commanded by Lt. Commanders. All over the UK military there are examples of rank inflation. In the US army a Captain will command a large company in the British army there are many examples of Captains commanding under strength platoons. I’ve no particular desire to reduce opportunities for those at the bottom of the pile, but without a realistic rank/role structure at the base of the pyramid it makes it even more difficult to remove sections higher up!

[Pontius Navigator]

Nurse - those are good points but I think that you maybe missing the point....rather than amalgamating the nursing, dentist, medical corps of all 3 services....why not get rid of the lot? Why do we need so many doctors and nurses? why are dentists considered officers?....they are hardly doctors..... why not rely on the NHS?

You have to be extracting the urine on this one?

How many NHS dentists are willing to deploy on HM War Canoes? How much would it cost to select an NHS Doctor for a tour in Ascension? What is the chance of finding one that has a proper degree and language skills?

One attribute for RAF Doctors is AvMed knowledge. This includes a specialist area of physiology and also protective clothing. We once had a doctor fast-tracked through to the unit bypassing Cranditz. It fell to us to teach him not only the customs and etiquette of the Service but also AvMed. He had a brain the size of a planet and put our training to good effect,but that is another story.

[NURSE]

Answered exactly the NHS has little or no understanding of service needs. Its a bit like saying contract the flying in the RAF to virgin or BA.

Why not reform the medical, police and supply services into Joint orginisations?

[adminblunty]

Bin Red Arrows and 32 Sqn

Close Halton and have a single point of entry to the RAF.

Close Honington and collocation Regt training and Honington Sqns at an Army infantry depot.

Move CAS and staff to HQ Air Cmd and bin CINC Air, DCINC this and DCINC that. And do the same for CGS and 1SL

Review Air Officer Numbers i.e AOC DAUs, why do we need this post, give the duties to AOC 1, 2 or 38 Gp.

Bin CEA with immediate effect unless you are in recepit of payments in which case they end when the kids leave school.

Stop SSFA if you own a house within 25 miles of your duty station.

Amalgamate RAF legal service with the Army and RN Legal Services, one Armed Forces Bill = Requirement for one Legal Service.

Bin RAF stewards and PTIs.

Bin Air Officers Drivers, have a pool of civvies do it

Outsource IT provision/maintenance to the private sector, I know of a number of firms who'd love the contract.

Civilianise 2 MT. Do 2 MT drive across the AFG/PAK border to Kandahr etc?

Tie the Aircrew FRI amount payable to the number of airline posts advertised on the most popular pilot recruitment website, i.e more posts advertised and the FRI does down.

Oh thats just for starters

[vecvechookattack]

ne attribute for RAF Doctors is AvMed knowledge


Would that be the same AV medical specialist who asked me during my last aircrew medical if it was uncomfortable when my ears wouldn't clear...?


Yeah,right..... specialist medical officers.... ........Baboons more like

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

why not rely on the NHS?

VVHA,

I always read your posts wondering just what daft thing you are gonna say next but that one is absolutely priceless :p

[ZuluMike]

A few attacks on 32 Sqn on this thread. I think there's some ignorance about what it does and how it is funded. I understood the Royals pay for their usage themselves. Also that the annual running costs are very small and contribute enormously to efficiency - I personally would prefer the important decision makers to be able to whizz round efficiently to several appointments rather than stuck in traffic and ineffective. Then again, I also agree with the posts criticising rank inflation and the sheer numbers of Air Officers.

The fixed wing part of 32 Sqn was almost exclusively operating in theatre last time I asked, though that was not recently. I also heard that the rotary element (3 Agusta 109s?) had been chopped anyway.

Anyone shed any more light?

Regarding 'personal' chefs: last time I was on an aircraft carrier, the ship's Captain had his own personal chef as the Captain was not a member of the Wardroom so he could only eat with the other officers if invited by the Commander. Seemed barking to me, but said chef was kept busy catering for small evening soirees to which selected personnel were invited (mostly female, or was that co-incidence ;)?). Perhaps he mucked in with the other catering staff at other times or ran the Cockers-P by himself.

[Pontius Navigator]

Would that be the same AV medical specialist who asked me during my last aircrew medical if it was uncomfortable when my ears wouldn't clear...?


Yeah,right..... specialist medical officers.... ........Baboons more like

Did I say all?

We once had a doctor fast-tracked through to the unit bypassing Cranditz. It fell to us to teach him not only the customs and etiquette of the Service but also AvMed.

Then there were a trio, one Army, one Navy and one Army. They rotated through the same 3 posts, one at Washington, one at Alvestoke, and I think one at Wroughton. The RAF one was Wrexford-Welsh (IIRC), and difficult to imagine him gaining his experience in the NHS.

[Jig Peter]

@162657 (hope I've got the number right ...
Rank (in both senses of the word) inflation isn't a new thing by any means: by the mid '60s it had bedome "usual" that Wing Commanders commanded squadrons - except in FEAF, with Confrontation going on, where a full-strength Canberra squadron, for example, was run by an excellent Sqn. Ldr Boss who later went on to great things as he rose up the ladder, very deservedly.
One reason given earlier than that for people spending their career always one level below the one they were ready for was that the rank structuire was designed when aeroplanes were simple, and complicated machines such as the Meteor were above a Squadron Leader's skill levels.
:8
Such was (and still seems to be ?) the thinking in the Central London Branch of the Service ... Totally disregarding the fact that even before joining the Service, people likely to join had imbibed technical awareness and even knowledge far beyond that of those august personages who inhabited the dusty offices in which such things were decided.

(Rant not really over after decades ... !)

[Pontius Navigator]

Jig P, then he got a second squadron and became our boss. He was then moved sideways and up one into an entirely different role before back one and getting a station. Then surprise surprise he next surfaced as the AOC of the first sideways shuffle if I have it right.

A highly capable officer.

[vecvechookattack]

What about Met Officers? Most aircrew are trained as forecasters so why can't we do it rather than having Forecasting Officers? If getting the aircrew to do it is a step too far then why do you need to be an Officer to forecast the Met? Would a WO be able to do it? We have some WO and some Chief Petty Officers doing the forecasting and so why then employ Lt Cdrs ?

MOD Police..... Good god how many of them do we have? What do they do all day?

[dallas]

Most aircrew are trained as forecasters...
Not a whole lot makes me chuckle reflexley. Here is a rare catalyst.

[Pontius Navigator]

why do you need to be an Officer to forecast the Met? Would a WO be able to do it? We have some WO and some Chief Petty Officers doing the forecasting and so why then employ Lt Cdrs ?

MOD Police..... Good god how many of them do we have? What do they do all day?

More straight thinking from our favourite fish head.

The RAF only has commissioned Met Officers and non-commissioned observers in overseas theatres when it is desirable that they are under military discipline. Why commissioned? Because that is their equivalent civil service grade D, C or higher. If you dropped them a grade to E you would have to do the same across the entire civil service. Pay is low enough as it is so they need D or C grades to attract them.

MOD Police? First they have greater powers than Servicemen, and many civpol too, and they are part of the scheme to reduce the guarding committment foisted on to misemployed Servicemen.

[minigundiplomat]

We could save a fortune if we binned a particular fishead officer who seemingly has no grip on reality.

[vecvechookattack]

So why does the RN have non commissioned Met Officers and the RAF only have commissioned Met officers.... There is no Met Officer on most frigates and destroyers....they get their Met briefings from the Aircrew who are qualified Forecasters... Admittedly, we have cut down a lot on Met Officers recently with video conferencing met briefs which work very well....but if it can work at a UK Air Station then why not use it abroad as well?

Next branch to get rid of is Air Trafficers..... Why do we need to talk to 5 different Air Traffic people to recover VFR to an Air Base.....and why do each and every one of them ask you for your P.O.B ?


p.s. I'm not a Fishhead.... I'm a WAFU

[sitigeltfel]

why are dentists considered officers?....they are hardly doctors.....

Correct....................they are Surgeons :rolleyes:

[Pontius Navigator]

So why does the RN have non commissioned Met Officers They are either regular seamen employed as met forecasters or they are civilian met observers given NCO rank.

and the RAF only have commissioned Met officers....

I refer the gentleman to my earlier answer.

There is no Met Officer on most frigates and destroyers....they get their Met briefings from the Aircrew who are qualified Forecasters... provided they have done the course at Exeter they may be qualified. If not they are just briefing someonelses forcast.

Admittedly, we have cut down a lot on Met Officers recently with video conferencing met briefs which work very well....but if it can work at a UK Air Station then why not use it abroad as well? often abroad is a long way from UK?

Admittedly the USAF Forecaster at Wideawake was based at Patrick however the USAF crews invariably visited the RAF Forecasters who, incidentally, were not uniformed. [/QUOTE]

smells fishy ..........

[vecvechookattack]

provided they have done the course at Exeter they may be qualified. If not they are just briefing someonelses forcast.

Not true my friend....Its in Plymouth....the Forecasters course is conducted at HMS Drake in Plymouth....


anyway, enough about the Met Ratings .....

I heard today that the RAF Merlins which Were (are) being offered to the RN may be retained by the RAF due to the early demise of the Puma force. It would appear that the entire Puma force is being offered up as a lamb for the SDR ....the result of which would mean that the RAF would need to keep the merlin.... anyone else heard that..?

[Bismark]

I heard today that the RAF Merlins which Were (are) being offered to the RN may be retained by the RAF due to the early demise of the Puma force. It would appear that the entire Puma force is being offered up as a lamb for the SDR ....

Canny ploy maybe....deny Junglies the Merlins.....Seaking pays off in 2016....end of RN in SH....RAF take over JHC....job done.

[minigundiplomat]

Vec,

I have no idea if your wet, but your posts suggest the FU part of WAFU is particularly true.

[anotherchopride?!]

Quote from adminblunty:
"Tie the Aircrew FRI amount payable to the number of airline posts advertised on the most popular pilot recruitment website, i.e more posts advertised and the FRI does down."

This is the best cost-cutting idea yet adminblunty. Lots of civvy jobs for aircrew so REDUCE the financial RETENTION incentive...that way more aircrew leave for civvy jobs. Less people to fly the aircraft so now we can reduce airframe numbers. Less airframes to maintain, now let's get rid of the engineers. Less engineers, less people to admin, so less admin blunties...

And there was I thinking the aircrew FRI was about retaining aircrew, not supplementing the income we could have received outside had the jobs been available...although as policies go it sounds a winner to me :D

[vecvechookattack]

Canny ploy maybe....deny Junglies the Merlins.....Seaking pays off in 2016....end of RN in SH....RAF take over JHC....job done.


I think thats the point. If the RAF are seen as having sacrificed an entire aircraft force then this is going to see the end of the CHF's part within JHC - maybe not such a bad thing. The CHF would have to stand alone. Could they do it?

[Grimweasel]

I heard today that the RAF Merlins which Were (are) being offered to the RN may be retained by the RAF due to the early demise of the Puma force. It would appear that the entire Puma force is being offered up as a lamb for the SDR ....the result of which would mean that the RAF would need to keep the merlin.... anyone else heard that..?

That will bugger up 'other' JHC plans for future a/c types at Benson then!!!

[minigundiplomat]

Not necessarily Grim,

2 sqn's of Puma's were due to stay vs 2 sqn's of Merlins that may stay.

I don't buy any of this anyway. The RAF chopping helicopters to save FJ after the last few years would be a PR disaster......wouldn't be the first time though!

And who says the RAF wants JHC?

[Ray Dahvectac]

I refer the gentleman ...

Didn't Queen Victoria make some remark or ruling that Naval Officers were NOT gentlemen?

Probably apocryphal, but the story of a toastmaster whose opening remark at a formal dinner in London was "My Lords, Ladies, Gentlemen ... and Naval Officers" springs to mind. :E

[Bismark]

VVC,

If the RAF keep Merlin there will not be a CHF in 6 year's time.

Mini,

Torpy did...."if it flies it should be ours" mantra. I have not heard a change in this policy, although the current CAS is much quieter on the subject - but the Irish parrot behind Torpy still sits on Dalton's shoulder.

[Pontius Navigator]

Didn't Queen Victoria make some remark or ruling that Naval Officers were NOT gentlemen?

Wonderful thing, Google, diversion I agree but :

Help required with a naval urban myth (http://www.arrse.co.uk/lamp-sandbag-ii-tall-story-strikes-back/24704-help-required-naval-urban-myth.html)

[Wrathmonk]

Bismark

but the Irish parrot behind Torpy still sits on Dalton's shoulder

By this did you mean AVM (now AM) Timo Anderson who left the ACAS post on 1 March to head up the new MAA (post Haddon Cave). His replacement is AVM Baz North (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/acas.cfm), a helicopter man through and through - that may, or may not, be a good thing for the future of JHC and/or the future of RAF SH!;)

[vecvechookattack]

idn't Queen Victoria make some remark or ruling that Naval Officers were NOT gentlemen?

Is that the same reason why Naval Officers never stand for the loyal toast and also the same reason why Naval Officers never declare an allegiance to the Monarch ? Interesting customs

[Pontius Navigator]

In the first instance I understood it was to avoid head banging. In the latter

No oath of allegiance is sworn by members of the Royal Navy, which is not maintained under an Act of Parliament but by the royal prerogative

[Ray Dahvectac]

I understood it was to avoid head banging.

Now only practised by the RN when wearing their iPods I believe. :ugh:

The Nore mutiny story (RN officers called for ringleaders to come forward and state their grievances, and they would not be harmed. Step forward the mutineers who were promptly hanged. Queen Victoria was told of this, expressed the opinion that RN officers were not gentlemen and it has been so ever since) was the version related to me several years ago by a then-RN colleague of many years service. Of course, the Nore mutiny pre-dates Victoria's birth by several years but 'never let the truth get in the way of a good dit'. :ok:

[althenick]

didn't Queen Victoria make some remark or ruling that Naval Officers were NOT gentlemen?

I believe that she also referred to Naval officers as pigs (Before any "pigs" start protesting I learned of this from a Lt Cdr when I was an O/C in the RNR) Which is why you can sometimes hear Jack to this day (when Berating his lot) Refering to Naval officers as Pigs and the Wardroom as the Piggery.

[vecvechookattack]

Going back to the topic... Should we be rationalising our RW assets? Do we have too many Helicopters? How about we reduce to just 3 types? Which ones would go? Can I suggest that we "need" just the following:

Chinook, Apache, Wildcat.

Everything else goes.

[Red Line Entry]

I think vec's on the right lines. All the bitching about the Reds and the odd chef is irrelevant - it saves peanuts. Similarly, closing bases would save very little if all you do is move the units to another location as you inevitably will have to build hangars/offices/SLA/SFA (and the MOD don't get to pocket the sales proceeds).

The only way to save serious dosh is to disband entire fleets and NOT replace the capability with something else. That way you save the personnel costs and all the DE&S overheads, which combined are massive. Chopping the odd sqn or two isn't enough.

The question is, which fleets?

[vecvechookattack]

Thats my point...we can't fanny about by disbanding the BBMF, Reds etc...we have to be bold and get rid of capability.

Lets start with ASW. Lets get rid of our entire ASW cap. All Nimrods to go. All Type 23 frigates to go. All Merlin (Grey) to go.

Any Offensive Maritime Patrol capability should go. So, we get rid of all Tornado aircraft, All Nimrods and the Sentinel.

Why do we need so many heavy lift AT aircraft? All C130s to go as well as the Tristar and VC10. If we have to take a Capability gap then so be it.

32 Squadron...? Surely they have to be on borrowed time?

[Pontius Navigator]

And depth charges and asdic.

Do ships even need long range radar?

Or WAFU?

[DSAT Man]

Get rid of hats; they're archaic and serve no useful purpose! The Army wouldn't like it of course (cap badges) but the MOD would save a lot of money! *runs and hides.

[Army Mover]

Get rid of hats
Totally agree; all non-parachute trained personnel should get the heave-ho :E That's most of the RAF gone then :uhoh:

[Red Line Entry]

Removal of entire parachute capability (less SF) has got to be pretty much a no-brainer. But it's a bit easy to pick on the other Services (and II Sqn RAF Regt).

How about E3? Not essential for UK home defence and the US have enough for joint ops.

[vecvechookattack]

Thats a good point...the E3...what a compete waste of money that is

[Trim Stab]

Somebody mentioned drawing all MOD medical support from NHS. That is an idea that is worth developing. If NHS was structured so that volunteering for TA/RNR/RAFAux did not compromise NHS career, but also was potentially interesting career-wise, then why could it not provide all MOD medical/dental requirements, including in hostile environments?

Moreover, if all public sector pensions were streamlined and unified, it could be relatively easy for NHS/Reserve staff to switch between roles in either service, including senior roles.

There are other branches of the civil service that could be similarly integrated with MOD. For example, why not form a TA Royal Engineer Regiment of DFID volunteers? They could form a reserve of engineer-soldiers able to provide frontline reconstruction in the oft quoted battle for "hearts and minds".

[Trim Stab]

Thats a good point...the E3...what a compete waste of money that is


I know of an ex-RAF E3 pilot who took PVR, joined Virgin for a few years, then accepted their redundancy terms in the recession (£35.000), and rejoined the E3 fleet (allegedly) on a salary higher than his Virgin FO salary.

[Easy Street]

vec,

Lets start with ASW. Lets get rid of our entire ASW cap. All Nimrods to go. All Type 23 frigates to go. All Merlin (Grey) to go.


So you would advocate having a Navy that, effectively, is reduced to an air power projection + denial outfit (T45/Aster, Trident, Tomahawk and Harrier/JCA)? I would rather our Navy actually concentrate on its traditional job of securing sea lines of communication. You would certainly need them if you binned most of the heavy-lift AT.

Any Offensive Maritime Patrol capability should go. So, we get rid of all Tornado aircraft, All Nimrods and the Sentinel.

Tornado has never been an MPA and has not had a maritime role since Sea Eagle was retired aeons ago. Sentinel is not an MPA either. Am I missing something here?

[dkh51250]

Cease all payments for MDHUs. Service personnel pay National Insurance, why are the NHS getting two bites at the cherry?

[vecvechookattack]

Tornado has never been an MPA and has not had a maritime role since Sea Eagle was retired aeons ago. Sentinel is not an MPA either. Am I missing something here?


Not at all. Its just the way that the RAF group their aircraft...Offensive (Harrier, Jaguar), Defensive (F3, Typhoon), MPA/ Recce (GR4, Sentry, Nimrod) Etc etc. Apologies if they are in the incorrect bracket

So you would advocate having a Navy that, effectively, is reduced to an air power projection + denial outfit (T45/Aster, Trident, Tomahawk and Harrier/JCA)? I would rather our Navy actually concentrate on its traditional job of securing sea lines of communication. You would certainly need them if you binned most of the heavy-lift AT. Me too but something has to give. ASW ? Amphibious ?

[Whenurhappy]

'
'Somebody mentioned drawing all MOD medical support from NHS. That is an idea that is worth developing. If NHS was structured so that volunteering for TA/RNR/RAFAux did not compromise NHS career, but also was potentially interesting career-wise, then why could it not provide all MOD medical/dental requirements, including in hostile environments?

Moreover, if all public sector pensions were streamlined and unified, it could be relatively easy for NHS/Reserve staff to switch between roles in either service, including senior roles.

There are other branches of the civil service that could be similarly integrated with MOD. For example, why not form a TA Royal Engineer Regiment of DFID volunteers? They could form a reserve of engineer-soldiers able to provide frontline reconstruction in the oft quoted battle for "hearts and minds".,

Already done. I don't have the stats at hand but a significant percentage of our Medics (doctors, nurses etc) in Afghanistan are volunteers from the....NHS (where else?). Interestingly, there is no shortage of volunteers but if the recruitment and training system isn't quick enough we sometimes lose these guys and girls to MSF or similar organisations. The Reserve Forces Act 1996 limits how often we can mobilise reservists (1 year in three max).

MSSG (a 'hearts and minds' organisation) is largely composed of reservists, as are the various IO/Psyops units. Of course there are extensive resources across the reserve forces, but it is vary rare that units are ever mobilised en masse; rather they are used to augment regular units. RAF VR/RAuxAF utilisation is very, very high - soemthing like 150% of VR personnel have been mobilised for operations since 2003. The TA levels are much, much lower and based on asking for volunteers (the RAF doesn't do that - they are all (generally) compulsary mobilisations).

The motivation for joining reserve froces has to be considered. There are many, many very well qualified personnel who are part-timers in one form or another, but employed in completely different area s eg there are chartered civil engineers service as Gunners in RAuxAF Regt Sqns. They don't necessarily want to be military engineers! The Strategic Review of Reserve Forces that came out earlier last year is addressing many of these issues. For example, the TA still has units that would only ever be mobilised if we were invaded; in contrast the RAF Reserves are lean and fit for purpose.

Whilst I am on here - why do so many posters object to PTIs, for example? Evaporating all PTIs would allow one fast jet to operate for a year - or some such. Fitness is part and parcel of military life (or should be) to say nothing else of self pride and esteem. The PTIs are charged, inter alia, to ensure we are fit. Standy by for lard-arse self justification...

[Whenurhappy]

Service Personnel pay (or at least paid on their behalf) contracted out rates of NI, reflecting our own pension, medical and dental schemes...

[Pontius Navigator]

be bold and get rid of capability.

Lets start with ASW. Lets get rid of our entire ASW cap. All Nimrods to go. All Type 23 frigates to go. All Merlin (Grey) to go.

Any Offensive Maritime Patrol capability should go. So, we get rid of all Tornado aircraft, All Nimrods and the Sentinel.

Taking this seriously for a moment.

There are four threats components against a surface force.

The one that Vec choses to ignore is the sub-surface threat. A threat that can endure for days, can be posed by a large number of potentially hostile states (PHS), and once in the vicinity of a surface force can be very hard to detect even with modern ASW forces. If this threat is ignored then the only defence is to stand-off out of range. The range of an SSK OTOH could therefore neutralise a surface force.

The air threat is of much shorter duration than a sub-surface threat and that posed by PHS much shorter in range. Effective ASW defence would therefore avoid any air threat.

The surface threat may be similar to the sub-surface threat and increase in relation to proximity to the littoral but never neutralised by increasing stand-off distance. It can be probably be countered effectively with a gun and CIWS.

Thus if there is no ASW capability there is no need of an AAW capability and we can revert to a pure gun boat role. As the ASW tactic requires manoeuvrablity and great stand-off distance it would probably negate any OCA capability so we could also dispense with flight decks.

Well?

So that means we only need the capabilities of the our continental neighbours, the French excepted.

[vecvechookattack]

Thats a very good point. So if we decide to retain our defensive capability maybe its our offensive capability which should go? Trident? Apache?

[NURSE]

Everybody except PTI's hate PTI's thought I had it on authority that the highest paid PTI's were RAF who had markedly less responsibility than their army counter parts.
Maybe remove the PTI branch from the airforce and bring in APTC to look after all land based physical training.
The Idea of the NHS providing more medical reserves is a non starter I have a few friends ex TA AMS who were sacked by their trusts for being deployed despite what RFA 96 says it happens and the armed forces did sod all. To make this work you would need to drastically change the attitude to the TA within the NHS a simple solution make it a criminal offence to dismiss a TA soldier who has been deployed with a minimum 5 year sentence for the Chief exec and head of HR but for the reservist make it illegal for a trust to ask at recruitment if they are in TA/Reserves or if they join and make it a case for discrimination if their career is held back.
Maybe the MDHU issue could be solved by getting the military to take over the next failing NHS Trust that comes along.
As to the Airborne issue when apart from SF did the Para regt actually use parachutes to deploy. 2 sqn dropped into sierra leone onto a DZ secured by the Royal Marines. Maybe we could drastically cut parachute training to just SAS,SBS,SRR and Raiding support regt (or what ever 1 Para choose to call itself thease days) there is 1600 that could be used to fill in holes in other regiments and their support units could do the same for their parent cap badges infact it might be enough to replace the Gurkhas and some of the commonwealth recruits. The balance comming from the disbanded RAF Regt.
I wonder if Puma is being sacrificed to preserve the Chinook orders and will RAF go solely chinook and CHF take over the merlins?

[Whenurhappy]

There is a clear tension between medics taking 'leave' from an NHS Trust to go to the 'Stan and their colleagues who have to cover the gaps. However, if CE NHS trusts have dismissed Reservists for being mobilised, action can be taken (and there is no so-called stautute of limitations). This would be an absolute PR disaster for a NHS Trust to have done this; moreover ACDS R&C might be interested in knowing a bit more about this, as would the local RFCA...

Do you have any more details (PM if necessary NURSE).

[MaroonMan4]

I know that it is rumour web site and all that, but before we all eat ourselves up from the inside, has anyone actually seen what the HMG strategic plan and associated defence roles it expects from its military?

If we really are going to have all combat troops out of AFG by 2015, and if we are going to fall into the historical trap of isolationism, then there really is no need for a military at all - focused small scale intervention (only to conduct NEOs and disaster relief) is all that is required.

If that is the political direction then it is very clear -

Astute remains (as Oppenheimer said, you cannot 'disinvent' the nuclear weapon).
Fisheads retain a capability to protect British shipping and transport NEO/Disaster relief forces.
Strat AT to provide air bridge (C130Js - including tanker role - will do, no need for A400M or FSTA).
Infantry (slightly expand SF, significantly reduce line battalions).
Rotary - dont bother with anything else except for CH47 (possibly AH if sharpened guava fruit in the area - but that may be overkill and Wildcat may be able to do both roles with a big gun in the door).

No fast jets. No tanks. No Infantry Fighting Vehicles.

A British Defence Force orientated around national interests and maritime trade/NEO, with the nuclear option giving a seat at the UN/NATO security council. When required in extremis we will offer a disaster relief package.

And if that is the way that those in Main Building are thinking then God help us as if the cost to this country is its Armed Forces, then the whole gambit of historical lessons have obviously meant that the policy makers do not see the value in H M Forces, both now and beyond AFG.

I am no RUSI graduate, or defence academic - but by 2020 the world will be more unstable than it is now, not fighting over oil or religion, but the even more fundamental requirements of water, food and living space.

Lets see what happens then if we in the MoD are subjected to a treasury driven culling of capabilities and experience.

[Whenurhappy]

The MOD is consulting widely across Defence, Industry, FCO and Acadaemia (I'm not sure if direct representations are taken from the public). It is interesting to note that the DCDC Strategic Trends 2006* document (looking forward to 2035, IIRC) already reads a little dated - it didn't see the financial crash and the limitations on spending that this has imposed - and, arguably, instability that may result from it.
The UK - in spite of what the metropolitan elite might think - have enormous presence and credibility abroad. Amongst the Commonwealth (treated by the previous administration as an embarrasing anachronism), members still look to Britain on leadership on global issues and hold our forces in extremely high regard and expect us to use them accordingly - even in the Indians deplore the fact we got rid of batmen...

By the way we need to get away from linking UNSC seat with holding a nuclear deterent. As a victo nation, we got the seat in 1945 (before having nukes) and it isn't a requirement to ahve them, and any plans to reform the UNSC would require the P5 to vote on it...and the UK could veto any undesirable outcome. I was recently in New York and speaking to several PERMREP staff (from UK, US and France) it was clear that there are no serious attempts to reform the Security Council (and compromise the role of current P5).

In sum, Britain is a global player and likely to remain so (don't be seduced by the BRIC concept) and we should reverse the 'appologetic abbrogation of duty' which has characterised the last 65 years and behave like a global player, rather than appologising and thinking small...



*Yes I know that this is effectively a rolling brief and is updated regularly.

[Trim Stab]

Thats a very good point. So if we decide to retain our defensive capability maybe its our offensive capability which should go? Trident? Apache?


Trident is defensive.

[WannabeCrewman]

An outsiders view, but is there not a case to bin/ cut JCA numbers and replace them with Super Tucano for CAS/COIN ops?

Greater endurance, cheaper to run, and cuts out AFJT for some pilots as you would need an extra course/Squadron based at Lynton, for which one would have thought most of the infrastructure already exists?

Justification? For the cost of a single JCA ($89 million flyaway cost estimated in FY 2010), you could have:
*10 Super Tucanos
*15 AT-6B Texans

Just my 2p, like I said, its an outsiders view, I am sure there are a fair few reasons why this wouldnt work.

[BEagle]

WannabeCrewman, that would probably be fine if the opposition's AAA consisted only of spears and sharpened bits of fruit. If they have the odd large calibre machine gun, a COIN aircraft would soon be chewed to bits.

Single engined aircraft over the FLOT (that quaint old concept) operating at low speed? Not the healthiest place to be, I would suggest.

Low speed COIN aircraft and many drones would be at serious risk once the opposition fielded a few MiG-15s..........:hmm:

[Dengue_Dude]

COIN aircraft.

Are we going to use Pound coins or Euros to operate them? Will they have a nice red 'gun' button and make exciting machine gun noises?

With a different game cartridge, they could be used to depth charge submarines etc.

Cor, that would be fun and would be very cheap too! We could of course keep all the Air Staff and let them pretend until they retire on full pay.

Only a small overhead to keep the 'train on the tracks'.

[larssnowpharter]

I am no RUSI graduate, or defence academic - but by 2020 the world will be more unstable than it is now, not fighting over oil or religion, but the even more fundamental requirements of water, food and living space.

This is an important staement.

I left the RAF in the big reductions at the end of the Cold War. At the time I wrote a paper for RUSI that was rejected. Main points were:

1. Increasing instability as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Cited Balkans, Georgia. Middle East and the 'Stans together with many historical examples.

2. Need to increase - not decrease - conventional forces to protect energy interests in the ME.

3. Requirement to be able to deploy surface (including naval) and air power.

The fact is that decisions made over the next few months will have an impact for many years. Any war fought in 10 years will be fought with equipment now in the procurement chain.

The real challenge is in making a reasonable assessment as to the possible threats. Guesswork? Yes, to a certain extent but I applaud the efforts that appear to be being made to get some good guesses.

I recall a conversation with an Air rank staff officer on one of the MoD planning committees about 25 years ago:

'We have been in about 25 wars, conflicts, emergencies since the end of WW2', he said. 'We only had plans for one of them. That means we should either shut down such planning efforts or expand them.'

Except in small actions, the UK no longer has the wherewithall to act unilaterally. We need partners through various treaties. NATO is the prime example here. Yes, we have commitments to this organization, a key to our long term defence.

Procurement is a huge cost. NATO has some skills in this area. Might it not be an idea to use these and provide some equipment commonality? Old story, I know. But the times might force, at least the European nations, down this route.

You will all hate this next thought. The RAF has been slow, very slow, to accept contractors. Believe me thay can do a good job IF they are allowed to. The US Army knows how to use them. They can do things fast, efficiently and at a reasonable cost. I know. I spent 5 years post RAF contracting to the US military.

Just some thoughts.

Act in haste, repent at leisure.

[minigundiplomat]

You will all hate this next thought. The RAF has been slow, very slow, to accept contractors. Believe me thay can do a good job IF they are allowed to. The US Army knows how to use them. They can do things fast, efficiently and at a reasonable cost. I know. I spent 5 years post RAF contracting to the US military.


US contractors often see their role as a patriotic duty. Many (not all, but many) UK contractors see it as a way to do very little other than fleece the MOD

[Stupidbutsaveable]

MGD

Fair point. Just to add a little context having now seen both sides of the fence and currently supporting the US effort.

By far the worst military at accepting contractors are the Brits. There is a general distain and it pisses me off to be scowled at by the ignorant (REMF seniors typically the worst) whom I would have ripped a new one to a couple of years ago. We are often hampered by admin BS from providing the support you derserve.

Some people need to realise we are on the same side and would be ashamed if they were fully aware of some of the risks taken daily.

Apologies for the thread creep; continued respect to the SH crews.

[minigundiplomat]

By far the worst military at accepting contractors are the Brits.


Probably a legacy of some of the contractual howlers of the past. Increased use of contractors needs a greater quality from the civilians and a culture change from the military.

[Whenurhappy]

DD,

It's clearly been a while since you toured the 5th Floor. The Air Staff is a small group of civilian and uniformed personnel who directly support CAS and ACAS. It has survived routine streamlining and cost cutting like the rest of us. And I beleive that theya re entitled to their pensions also!

[vortexadminman]

Just sack all the IPTs. I know they tried and some were very good. Get 5 or 6 very good civilian contract writers and pay them a million quid each a year ( no I am not one) We would save millions in the short and long term on contracts with civvy companies. Just watched a great prog on tele about the guys at Bos putting badly bought Chinnies back together after stripping them ???? Sorry good senior officers don't always make good contract writers.:ugh:

[tucumseh]

By far the most time consuming and costly element is the constant to-ing and fro-ing agreeing Terms and Conditions.

In about 1990 our Contract Manager (note, singular; nowadays we have teams of Commercial Managers, 3 grades higher doing a lesser job) developed a computer program the basis of which was the T&Cs every contractor was comfortable with for any given type of contract (R&D, Development, Production, Repair, Support etc). When he received a Request for Contract Action he simply ticked the boxes and printed out a contract, photocopied the RCA and attached it as the Schedule. (Remember, it is not the Contract/Commercial staffs who agree a price is fair and reasonable, contrary to what many believe).

Of course his bosses were apoplectic at this efficiency, he was transferred, his programme quietly ditched and replaced by a few more staff whose inefficiency was never in doubt. This was a double whammy, as the sudden increase in Production Lead Time (which includes time taken to let the contract) meant the Services ran out of whatever product was being contracted, be it spares, repair contracts or whatever.

His little program wouldn’t be suitable for all contracts of course; some are far easier to agree. If it is a service with a known and constant output, you get the contractor to propose one for you. Again, this negates the faffing around leaving you to concentrate on a fair price. In fact, there is an MoD Specification outlining just this process, but it hasn’t been used it for 18 years. Yes, you guessed it, for the contracts designed to maintain airworthiness. Not exactly thread drift, but I imagine (and hope) the new MAA are trying to work out a consistent, efficient process and how to apply it. The answer is implement existing regulations, processes and procedures. The difficult bit is finding some dinosaur who remembers how.

[Jabba_TG12]

Tuc, dont take this the wrong way, but if I'd seen half the things you recall on here, I think I would probably have either burst a bloodvessel or retired to the hills of Wales to be a cheese maker. :E

...or had a Michael Douglas "Falling Down" moment! :}

I mean, all of us who have been in uniform have seen some dumb-ass decisions rolling downhill over the years, but it looks like you've had your share and a few others as well into the bargain.

Hasn't it given you more stress than you know what to do with over the years? :ugh:

[Mandator]

Tuc: Ref standard Ts & Cs etc, wasn't FATS supposed to overcome all this?

[Pure Pursuit]

VV,

I agree with you reference the E3. It went to Herrick last year and offered very little in terms of additional capability. There are too many issues that prevent it from being able to provide the same level of C2 as say 1ACC.

Despite what folk on here might think, there are not enough ABMs knocking around. The FI commitment is not going away and Herrick numbers are on the increase at the moment. We struggle to support the UK commitment too. Binning the E3 would save us a fortune in maintaining airframes that do very little for UK PLC and would release the manpower into the main ASACS hub, kicking and screaming no doubt.

Has to be done IMHO.

[FantomZorbin]

Mandator
I believe DEFCONs and DEFSTANs covered these points.

Vortexadminman
I agree with your comment re. the IPTs insofar as there are far too many civilian 'timeservers' wasting rations there. Both Mrs FZ and I spent time in an IPT and were appalled at the time-wasting and job-protection that went on with very little regard to the frontline/end user. For instance, working late(whilst not on Flexitime) or getting work done (correctly) too quickly was frowned on as it "reflected badly" on others. Needless to say our stay in the Civil Service was short as our patience and tempers could only take so much! There were some good people there but they were dragged down by the bureacratic jobsworths.

[tucumseh]

Jabba

YES! Thank you for your concern.

[Fire 'n' Forget]

Pure Pursuit

You were a 2 min Sgt in the Bunker/Scampton, let the adults chat.

[Pure Pursuit]

FF,

don't be a knob.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that the E3 is a luxury the RAF can ill afford at the moment.

It went to theatre and burned holes in the sky without doing anything massively productive. 1ACC could have done the same thing at a fraction of the cost and no doubt will in the future.

[ORAC]

London Evening Standard: Army troop levels to be slashed by a quarter (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23855586-army-troop-levels-to-be-slashed-by-a-quarter.do)

The size of the British Army is set to be slashed by almost 25 per cent under proposals being discussed today in what would be the most radical defence shake-up in more than 150 years.

The Army's fighting strength will be cut from 98,000 to just 75,000, half the figure when it fought Desert Storm in 1991, the Standard has learned.

The cuts — part of a massive defence spending review and the coalition's latest austerity measures — will also see trained professional military personnel in all three services cut to about 150,000 by 2014, down from 177,000.

Also under scrutiny for the possible axe are big-ticket items of new equipment, such as the projects for new aircraft carriers, a new class of frigate, the Joint Strike Fighter and a new family of fighting vehicles.

The move, amid a mounting British death toll and polls which claim most voters want an end to the nine-year-old war, would result in the biggest Army shake-up since the Crimean War.

It is known David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne are looking for an immediate 10 per cent cut in defence spending and resources. The Treasury has suggested current defence expenditure must be cut by a third of its present level within three years......

Spending on keeping the UK military force of just under 10,500 in Afghanistan has been guaranteed until this time next year. It is now understood No 10 wants Britain to quit combat operations there by the end of 2013 at the latest......

The Ministry of Defence officials have worked for the past year on 42 studies of major areas of expenditure. These are to be reduced to 12 policy choices, which will be measured against the amount of money available over the next five to 10 years. The final settlement for defence will be announced in September.

Last week officials were told their proposed cuts in the 42 studies were not deep enough and they should prepare more radical ones.....

[Mandator]

FZ: DEFCONS and DEFSTANS cover all these points, but wasn't the idea behind FATS that these would all be agreed up front, along with manhour rates etc. Those companies pitching for safety-related work (including airworthiness) had to pre-qualify to show that they were able to meet the required standards for skill, knowledge and experience etc. When a task was required it was supposed to be only a matter of the applicable contractors tendering their solution and manhour costs against an ITT/SOR; effectively, there would be a mini-competition for each contract, but with pre-agreed Ts & Cs and rates.

Perhaps this put too much work on the people in the IPTs so they decided to make every contract a single-source and give the work only to the big boys.

[larssnowpharter]

Instead of looking to what exists at the moment, take a clean sheet of paper. Imagine the UK with no military and no equipment. Then:

1. Cast your collective minds forward 10 years.
2. Ask what the threats to national security are likely to be.
3. Then design your equipment and train your people to provide that defence in the best way possible.

Where would that take us?

[glad rag]

Around 1984'ish!

[minigundiplomat]

1. Infantry - Para's/RM/Ghurka's plus other light infantry (+SF)
2. Light Armour
3. SH/AH
4. Tac AT C130/C17 (A400M if it's less crap than I anticipate)
5. PFI Strategic AT/AAR
6. Lean Support Arms - EOD/RLC etc
7. Specialist Elements - Mobile NBC units
8. CAS - I'll let the FJ guys argue the best platform out on this one.
9. Adequate AD for UK
10. ISTAR - UAV/ASTOR/Sentinal
11. Maritime Patrol Craft
12. Helicopter Carriers (CVF/Ocean class perfectly adequate)
13. Escorts - Frigates/ AD pickets
14. Subs - Hunter Killer/Strike
15. Joint Logs Chain
16. Effective leadership

Overall, a light and well equipped mobile force biased towards small scale/medium scale short term intervention/UK Defence.

[Pheasant]

One of the reasons the Brits hate contractors is that as a generalisation UK contractors are made up of failed Servicemen who have left because they either did not succeed on the promotion ladder or they saw more opportunity outside. MFTS is a classic case of this where it is filled with ex-RAF bods with deply held views of how training should be done (ie the RAF way) and heavily influenced by their old RAF bosses. But SERCO, Babcock etc are just the same.

[Wrathmonk]

MGD

small scale/medium scale short term intervention

By short term I assume you mean 'non-enduring' i.e. a single shot with no roulement. Unfortunately, IMHO, that does not meet the requirement of intervention - intervention in another nations business always leads on to follow on stabilisation / peace keeping. Yes we could do as you suggest for humanitarian relief etc but intervention / peace keeping - forget it. I'm struggling to think of a recent intervention operation that has been 'short term' - even Sierra Leone left a significant training team behind for some years.

Bottom line - if we're going to reduce our forces to the size of say Belgiums (random choice - don't know their actual size) then we need to reduce our aspirations accordingly. If that means just the defence of UK territory (and whats left of its sovereign territory) plus the odd hurricane / flood relief then so be it. Leave the big wars to those with the money / forces - USA and China!;)

Pheasant

So true - and the reason many of these companies can bid cheap is they pay peanuts and rely on ex-servicemen looking to supplement their pensions.

[Jabba_TG12]

"If that means just the defence of UK territory (and whats left of its sovereign territory) plus the odd hurricane / flood relief then so be it. Leave the big wars to those with the money / forces"


Nail.

Head.

BANG.

[Pontius Navigator]

Those companies pitching for safety-related work (including airworthiness) had to pre-qualify to show that they were able to meet the required standards for skill, knowledge and experience etc. When a task was required it was supposed to be only a matter of the applicable contractors tendering their solution and manhour costs against an ITT/SOR; effectively, there would be a mini-competition for each contract, but with pre-agreed Ts & Cs and rates.

The problem here is two-fold. First, for any contract there will be a number of expressions of interest. These will be whittled down to a number of bidders. From these a few will be selected as prefered bidders. As far as pre-qualification is concerned this can only refer to the potential qualifications of a company to do the contract work - no company has a qualified workforce ready to plug in to the job.

This raises the second problem - TUPE. The manhour costs are already predicated by the previous contractor. The only way to reduce a contract bid is by reducing the manpower offered not by cutting wages. On a second or third iteration of a contract things will be finely honed and the sitting contractor will have a competitive edge over the competition.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Now touching on contractors using failed servicemen. What a gross over-simplification. Many servicemen may have fulfilled their engagements. Others will have left at their option points as their work-life balance changes. It is no secret that priorities change between young thrusters in their 20s and early 30s and the more experienced family men near 40.

Of my contractors, the team was led by a retired full-term SNCO. There were two other ex-full engagement NCOs one of whom did not have a pension. The rest of the work force worked as effectively and to a similar ethos you would expect of those in uniform but their numbers were far fewer - no cooks and bottle washers, no medics, no ditstractions from work. There was no demarcation either multi-skilling and chores done on rotation. No cleaners were employed; the contractor did that,. A room needed painting; the contractor did that. The yard needed sweeping; no SWOs working party; the contractor did that.

OTOH I echo the sentiments that many Servicemen resent contract staff largely, I suspect, as they have no powers over them. They have to ask, not order. I remember when Miss PN graduated the reviewing officer said how much the RAF would depend on grey suiters. That was a decade ago. We still have a way to go.

[FantomZorbin]

Mandator

You're right, I overlooked the rates etc.:O I daresay that it all got too complicated when everything above a certain value had to be put in the European Journal and all and sundry would then be invited to Tender!

[NutLoose]

Well at least some good news

HM Government (http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=BBMFCuts)

[vecvechookattack]

To be honest I think thats awful news. Thats the death nail of the BBMF.


On the 23rd April 2010 David Cameron stated....

"We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT.

and then on the 22nd June 2010....... He raised VAT.


Now, I don't have a problem with VAT but I would take what the Government says with a pinch of salt. They could very easily change their mind....and probably will

[Ray Dahvectac]

Well at least some good news

Yes and no. The response to the petition is mere political rhetoric and can be read in more than one way ...

the Government currently has no plans to cut funding for the BBMF

... but we may have following the SDR. :sad:

[ZuluMike]

wannabecrewman: actually, I think you are spot on and BEagle and the d.dude are out of touch.

Anyone with experience of HERRICK CAS who examined your proposal properly would struggle to dismiss it. But I doubt anyone bothered to research the capability offered by these 2 aircraft. The Texan is the better option, but the Supertucano is still credible.

If you understand how we are doing CAS in Afghanistan, the light CAS aircraft makes sense. Last analysis I saw (you're not the first to ask this) showed some options can carry a truly impressive payload even compared to the GR4 (which carries less than you'd think for its size - less than the single engined Harrier, for example, due to its new engine's hot and high performance). For your money, you get much more firepower over the scene - or the same amount for cheaper (more airframes but not double the number so you'd still have fewer aircrew due to binning the navs).

By the way - the Americans are taking this route in a big way. I think they're getting the Texan. They looked at Afghanistan and they concluded light CAS aircraft was the future. We will follow, just a question of when.

So, to really save money: bin the Tucano at Linton, bin the Hawk, get the Texan and use it for BFJT and AFJT, fly them from the same base (close Linton), economies of scale with engineering, ground school, simulators. And have some operational for CAS. I would never advocate getting rid of another front line type as a result, the Harriers and Typhoons offer much more than CAS (despite the eternally ignorant Vev's categorising of the Typhoon as an Air Defence aircraft alone). But it might make the Tornado a bit more redundant...:E

[Wrathmonk]

the GR4 (which carries less than you'd think for its size - less than the single engined Harrier...

Remind me, I've not worked with JFH for some time, but which station/pylon does the Harrier carry the RAPTOR pod on?

More to FJ ops in AFG than just CAS .....:p

[Easy Street]

You'd think that the current UK CAS setup in Afghanistan is failing, judging from the frequency with which people snipe at it! So, rather than have 3rd parties pontificate about the various shortcomings of the GR4 / Reaper combination, let's hear from any of the following:

a) A mover who thinks that GR4's apochryphal "massive logistics tail" is preventing other vital supplies from reaching KAF

b) A JTAC who has 'winchestered' a Reaper or both elements of a GR4 formation and has been unable to obtain further CAS support almost immediately

c) A JTAC who would rather have unguided rockets back, instead of a laser-guided missile and a gun

d) A JTAC who finds it difficult to communicate with a WSO or sensor operator who is 100% focussed on the ground situation, and would rather go back to talking to a single pilot who is simultaneously monitoring his targeting pod picture, keeping an eye on his junior wingman and trying to avoid all the UAVs? (I think it's fair to say that 100% of a WSO's capacity trumps 25% of a single pilot's capacity - just!)

If no-one answers, can we assume that our CAS/CCA provision (not forgetting the AH64!) is up to the task and find a different argument for keeping our ship-based jumping bean?

Eureka! Ship-based! That's what'll save it! ermm...

I would argue that the American experience in Afghanistan shows that you don't need specialised CAS aircraft. The busy, highly kinetic northern taskings are filled almost exclusively by F15E and F16 out of Bagram. Any complaints about the service they provide? Why would the US replace their flexible, capable aircraft with a one-trick pony such as a Super Tucano? (the answer is that it wouldn't be a replacement, but an addition!)

[ZuluMike]

The last JTAC who I saw posting on here did say exactly that. Neither he nor I were saying current CAS isn't up to the job, but that it wasn't the best available.

Very familiar with RAPTOR. on its own it doesn't justify the jet. it has advantages over DJRP, but not enough to justify the entire platform.

[Biggus]

ZM,

This is not a personal attack - but I suggest you wake up and smell the roses. People can discuss as much as they want which is the most effective CAS platform, whether new aircraft should be bought, etc, but they are largely academic discussions.

We are as broke as a broke thing, and I expect SDR to cut deep into our capabilities. Cameron wants to have stopped fighting and only be mentoring in Afghanistan by 2013, Obama wants out even earlier. Introducing any new aircraft type wouldn't happen in time, and we have no money for it, even if it would prove more cost effective in the long term. Instead a scythe will be taken to the current fleets that provide the UK with CAS capability.

Actually, thinking about it again I'm talking rubbish. I have just posting on another thread that this is pprune - not the real world. So carrying on discussing ideal CAS options to your hearts content!

[Yozzer]

Invite the Argentinians to a Fire Power demo in 'Stan to demonstrate the effectiveness of Pucara to the world.

US provide AT cause we wouldn't. No UK cost.
Gets them to play in 'stan. win-win.
Gets them to set aside the Malvinas with +PR. win-win.
Avoids the drama associated with single engined lightweight CAS suffering an engine failure. win-win.
Quite possibly the best aircraft for the role already in service.

I should be a politition.
Ican doodah gizzajob.

[larssnowpharter]

Regarding CAS, I have just had a flight of 2 OV10s fly overhead. One understands that Boeing intends to go ahead with production of them as the OV X. Announced at the Singapore air show as I recall.

[Kitbag]

further to the OV10 story see here (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/01/321730/boeing-considers-restarting-ov-10-production-after-23-year.html)

[Pontius Navigator]

I remember COIN was one of the questions in the B-exam 45 years ago. Cheap, cheerful, and plentiful versus expensive, sexy, and few. The OV was around then IIRC and the Vietnam war was ramping up.

I guess the major limitations then were slow transit speeds, lower bomb loads, and greater exposure to enemy fire. The Sky Raider over came some of these limitations.

We no longer have a trip-wire strategy and possibly only need multi-capable invervention forces to hold the line for a year or so. Accepting there is no cash in the kitty, we would keep things like a COIN capability on the shopping list, along with mine- protected vehicles etc, ready to ramp up production and bring in to service in a couple of years.

Rather than invest in amphibious warfare ships that will probably be in the wrong place at the right time we could concentrate on STUFT instead as there will always be cruise ships at Southampton capable of carrying 3-4,000 troops (assuming we have that many).

We could apply a similar logic to helicopter carriers and accept that a single fixed-wing carrier could not apply airpower without shore based support.

The surface fleet could be optimised for close in defence against coastal SSK and light attack craft and have a limited AAW capability for the protection of STUFT.

Only long-lead items like the RN Escort vessels, RAF intervention capability and aviation R&D would be funded. The Army has probably written off its heavy armour already and MLRS is also a gold-plated asset. Heavy artillery too is probably over-kill for the moment so it would be better to maintain multi-role production capability rather than buying expensive equipement.

[LFFC]

The chiefs of the three Armed Forces will clash today in a “battle royal” to decide which aircraft, warships and tanks will go in the coming round of defence cuts (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7907148/Battle-Royal-as-Forces-chiefs-clash-over-cuts.html).

Today's “away-day” meeting will see the RAF under intense pressure to sacrifice some of its fast jets, potentially losing both fast jets and transport aircraft. The Navy might lose control of the Royal Marines as the price of its new aircraft carriers.

Interesting times!

[vecvechookattack]

Royal Navy and RAF will bear brunt of multi-billion pound defence cuts - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/sean-rayment/7908487/Royal-Navy-and-RAF-will-bear-brunt-of-multi-billion-pound-defence-cuts.html?)

[indie cent]

... is that we appear to be debating the mutual exclusivity of GR4 vs GR9 as a solution to cost cutting.

Surely this is too simplistic, given the Tornado mud force's relative numerical strength over JFH.

If we were to cut the Tonka fleet in half or more, (let's say) then surely we'd save more than if we completely axed our only shipborne fixed wing capable ac?

As each ac appears to have roles that the other cannot fulfil, surely we wouldn't be daft enough to drop either type before a replacement is available? (I know, I know it's already been done; SHAR and capability gaps etc. etc.)

...but surely!?!

Would it not be more logical to keep the Harrier fleet and its cadre of maritime aviators and significantly reduce The Tornado fleet as required to make the savings? Whilst keeping both fleet's core capabilities. The required simplification of types could be achieved when JSF and Typhoon reach maturity.

Finally, if we decide to axe the the Harrier force, then wtf are we buying 2(*) carriers for??? Once that decision is made, the logical argument for Fixed wing maritime aviation is perhaps lost.

I'm just not sure if scrapping the Harrier force would be a wise move,

...shares in Desire Petroleum you see!


* advisory only.

[Blighter Pilot]

My personal take on SDSR potential for the Forces:-

RAF:-

Immediate withdrawal of Harrier GR9 with the associated closure of RAF Wittering - saving money on the Cottesmore transfer.
GR4 fleet reduced further to allow transition to Typhoon GA and JCA.
Last Typhoon trance cancelled/mothballed and JCA order drastically reduced.
FSTA PFI re-examined and contract amended/reduced.
A400M cancelled.
VC10 withdrawn immediately.
E3D withdrawn immediatley.
RJ order re-examined.
Extra buy of C130J and C17.
Increased UAV/ISR procurement.
Expansion of RAF Regt Field Sqns to support future FP requirements.
Cancellation of Puma upgrade.
Withdrawal of Sentinel.
Sea King SAR extended.

Royal Navy:

Withdrawal of Harrier removes the requirement for CVF.
New carrier build amended/reduced iaw with reduced JCA buy.
Second carrier to become heli/amphib support.
Convential submarine fleet reduced.
Sea King/ Lynx roles and numbers reduced.

Army:

MBTs scrapped/sold
Heavy Artillery/Mobile Artillery scrapped - except GMLRS.
Rebrigading to Mechanized Infantry with associated light armour.
Removal of the Airborne Role - Air Mobile remains.


Any other thoughts?

[Joe Black]

Not sure that Sentinel will be withdrawn and can't see us getting rid of all the E3s just yet but apart from that I can see your prediction coming to fruition. What about MRA4....take it on risk???

[Blighter Pilot]

MRA4 to remain to support future Naval Task Force/AmphibFor.

Protection of Future Nuclear Deterrent Submarine

[StopStart]

Blighter :)

Immediate withdrawal of Harrier GR9 with the associated closure of RAF Wittering - saving money on the Cottesmore transfer.
GR4 fleet reduced further to allow transition to Typhoon GA and JCA.
Not convinced - I think it might GR9 remains & GR4 goes offset/sweetened by an increased Typhoon buy further down the line...
Last Typhoon trance cancelled/mothballed and JCA order drastically reduced.
JCF ordered halved I reckon although I suspect there might be a sneaky offer of half of the buy to the FAA...if covered from the RN budget.
FSTA PFI re-examined and contract amended/reduced.
Reckon this is tied up tighter than a tight thing. Be interesting to see if it could be amended however to get an earlier in service date for the non-centreline jets without the wing pods. i.e. get them in as military airliners and then fit wing pods as and when whilst in service. Would enable early binning of the TriStar
A400M cancelled.
This is the interesting one (if you're a dull truckie obviously) and impossible to call. Was interesting to see the figures Fox was quoting re numbers of Hercules when discussing fleet sizes. He's either being fed by an idiot, a liar or an agenda.
VC10 withdrawn immediately.
We need to maintain an AAR capability. Suspect VC10 will be drawn down to AAR only and a minimum fleet to support critical tasking.
E3D withdrawn immediatley.
We need to maintain an independent AWACS capability however a fleet of 7 aircraft is about 50% bigger than we need for core business. Fleet reduction required
RJ order re-examined.
If this platform will genuinely replace the R1 in toto then it's a capability we need. If however it's a half arsed attempt at avoiding having to properly replace the R1 then bin it and rethink.
Extra buy of C130J and C17.
An area of personal interest :) If the A400 goes then an eventual fleet of 10 C17 has to be a sensible target to aim for. An extra buy of C130J would only be necessary I think (biased) if the UK Armed Forces actually became serious about FW support to UKSF. In an ideal world you'd have a small fleet (5/6) frames operated and owned outwith 2 Gp and working within a USAF AFSOC style set up alongside similar "minded" assets. Would reap huge capabilities for a relatively small outlay. Sadly not pointy or jet powered thus never happen..
Increased UAV/ISR procurement.
It's the future! Get in now kids while the water's still warm!
Expansion of RAF Regt Field Sqns to support future FP requirements.
Yup but they'd have to sell it well to avoid being consumed by the army.
Cancellation of Puma upgrade.
Bye!
Withdrawal of Sentinel.
Don't see that happening any time given how Network ISTAR Centric Enabled Buzzword Buzzword Capabilities we've apparently become
Sea King SAR extended.
Got to be cheaper than a civvy contract but is there scope for the yellow hatters to also have a standby green hat and develop a core CSAR capability akin to the USAF's HH-60s?

[Jackonicko]

But I doubt anyone bothered to research the capability offered by these 2 aircraft. The Texan is the better option, but the Supertucano is still credible.

Credible enough that while the USAF have looked at a souped up Texan, the US Navy preferred to evaluate the Tucano.

Credible enough that US politicians have been brought in to fight the Tucano as a 'not made here' option.

Credible because it has a better, better integrated and built in gun.

Are you sure the Texan is the 'better option' or is this the usual uncritical slack-jawed and awestruck reaction to US kit because it's American?

Just askin'?

[andrewn]

Some may find the comments in this blog of interest - they certainly echo my own fears regards the likely outcome of SDSR:

Round One in the SDSR | Kings of War (http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/07/round-one-in-the-sdsr/comment-page-1/)

Let's hope our leaders (Political and Military) have the foresight to see past the current conflict, and recognise that in all likelihood not all future conflicts will be the same.

[Lyneham Lad]

Telegraph On-Line this afternoon: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7916513/George-Osborne-Trident-is-not-exempt-from-budget-cuts.html)-

George Osborne: Trident is not exempt from budget cuts.
George Osborne has stoked a Cabinet row over funding for the Trident weapons system by insisting that Britain’s nuclear defence was not exempt from budget cuts.

snip.

In words which are likely to infuriate Dr Fox, he added: “All budgets have pressure. I don’t think there’s anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence. “I have made it very clear that Trident renewal costs must be taken as part of the defence budget.”

See link for the full article. If accurate, the inter-Service squabble over funding will reach dizzying new heights :ugh: (or they will for once take action in unison - military coup anyone? :E )

Flippant mode OFF: It beggars belief that the capital cost of Trident be added to the existing MOD budget whilst simultaneously imposing swingeing cuts on said budget. What on earth would we be left with?

[163627]

Hopefully no one try to axe SH or AT?


UK helicopter fleet was 'inadequate' - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=13639)

[Biggus]

Why not?

According to Dave we won't be fighting in the 'stan post 2012/3, and will be out not long after.....so why such a big AT/SH fleet post 2013?








And for what its worth I'm not saying they should be cut - but I am asking the question!

[Blighter Pilot]

so why such a big AT/SH fleet post 2013?



Because expeditionary warfare/small-scale interventions will require troops and equipment to be moved around the globe.

We will need a large enough SH fleet to support all operations

[vecvechookattack]

Because expeditionary warfare/small-scale interventions will require troops and equipment to be moved around the globe.


But we won't be doing that so we won't need a large SH / AT fleet.

[minigundiplomat]

FI - SH
Gulf - SH
Bosnia - SH
NI - SH
Sierra Leone - SH
Sierra Leone again - SH
Kosovo - SH
Mozambique - SH
Pakistan - SH
Afghanistan - SH
Iraq - SH
Afghanistan again - SH
Lebanon - SH
UK Flood relief - SH
Foot & Mouth - SH
CT - SH

You're right Vec, there is no chance of any of those unforseen things ever happening again. Let's get rid of all our SH.... it's not like they get used much.

Tw@t.

[vecvechookattack]

Tee Hee.... Very droll MGD.....


But that is a very relevant point that you make.

Don't forget that you should slip inside the eye of your mind, Don't you know you might find

But bearing in mind what Sir Stephen Dalton stated at Farnborough last week then we won;t be involved in any more of FI - SH
Gulf - SH
Bosnia - SH
NI - SH
Sierra Leone - SH
Sierra Leone again - SH
Kosovo - SH
Mozambique - SH
Pakistan - SH
Afghanistan - SH
Iraq - SH
Afghanistan again - SH
Lebanon - SH
UK Flood relief - SH
Foot & Mouth - SH
CT - SH


There simply won't be the money, aircraft or political will

[Pontius Navigator]

FI - SH
Gulf - SH
Bosnia - SH
NI - SH
Sierra Leone - SH
Sierra Leone again - SH
Kosovo - SH
Mozambique - SH
Pakistan - SH
Afghanistan - SH
Iraq - SH
Afghanistan again - SH
Lebanon - SH
UK Flood relief - SH
Foot & Mouth - SH
CT - SH
OTOH if we do, how do you get the SH there and then support them?

FI - SH
Gulf - SH
Pakistan - SH
Lebanon - SH


and protect them?

[taxydual]

Seeing as most of those countries listed have a coastline.....
You could put a lot of SH on a very big boat. OK, you would have to provide people to fly the SH and fix them when they break, so the big boat will have to have workshops for the hardware and bedrooms for the people to sleep in. Oh, the big boat would have to have a large, flat surface for the SH to land on. The big boat would also have a few little boats with big bang sticks or whizz bangs to protect the big boat from nasty men. Seeing as a lot of people don't like being on boats though, you would have to find people who do like being on boats. Hmm, you could call them sailors.

Now I wonder were I could get 2 large boats with flat tops to put the SH on? And seeing as it's about boats, aircraft and armed people, I would have to name this organisation the Fleet Air Arm.

Simples.




Do you know, I've got to stop drinking Aussie Red Wine. I keep getting these crazy thoughts! :ok:

[minigundiplomat]

Vec,

I never look back in anger.

Pontious,

Apart from Afg, Mozambique and Pakistan - they got there by flying. You know, engaging engines, turning the heads and moving through the sky towards a destination. But don't get me wrong, we do need more AT.

taxydual,

I could suggest the next war will be fought in space and the RN would find a justification for two new carriers. I agree that many of those places have a coast, but sometimes there is an urgency of need that isn't quite met at 30 Kts.

Ask the RM aboard Ocean in 2002 how easy it was to get to Bagram when no port in the [overwhelmingly muslim] area would let them ashore, and the FAA legs weren't sufficient. Hence a couple of days to Salalah and then a trip by AT.

Not a dig, but a carrier isn't the answer to every problem. You accuse the RAF of being blinkered, but it looks very much like 6 and two 3's.

As for money, political will? GWB had no foreign policy at all before 9/11 and had to come up with one quick.

The Falklands is still bubbling away, and even the Brokeback Coalition seem committed to their protection. Floods and disease happen without warning and as long as we are members of NATO we have obligations under Article 5 of the treaty. That is why we are in Afghanistan, despite the myriad of other BS reasons given by cyclops and Bliar.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Does Afghanistan have a coastline :confused:, bloody fish heads and their outdated ideas :p

[NutLoose]

Looks like it's well and truely f3cked............. Suppose next is to remove the F off the end of RAF and replace it with S for support, because the way things are going the RAF will never again be able to project a Force in any strength and in any region including the Waddington and Farnborough airshows. :sad:

[Postman Plod]

So...

A defence budget that already can't cover its commitments, and is projected to be £36Bn in deficit over the next 10 years.

Massive cuts imminent - announced within months

A government effectively saying we will not be committing to anything beyond 2015 when we pull out of Afghanistan, therefore scope for more cuts from 2015

£20Bn estimated costs (when have defence cost estimates ever been accurate?!) of Trident replacement to be met out of a Defence budget of about £36Bn (over about 10-15 years I'd imagine?). Now I'd guess that the Treasury will not be increasing the defence budget proportionately (if at all!) to cover this new requirement... I also bet that the Government will not allow the MoD to even consider cancelling or scaling back Trident replacement to allow the funds to be better directed to defence capabilities that might actually be used....


Now to me, I'd look at those figures and suggest defence is f***ed. Liam Fox is right to be fuming - he won't have a department left by the time this is all finished! and I thought Liebour were bad....

[taxydual]

Chaps, I'll admit my post was very much 'tongue in cheek' and playing, a bit, 'devils advocate'. What I was trying to get across was that it's so bliindingly obvious we are broke and cannot afford the 'bells and whistles' we would like. Therefore common sense has to prevail.

Surely, the three Services have to get together and throw out the individual Sea, Land, Air thinking mentality and think Joint. Think UK Armed Forces. I appreciate the pride each of the individual Services has in it's own individual history, but 'history' doesn't give the Front Line Joe the tools he/she needs to do the job.

What is needed is a strong political master in MoD and a strong 'joint' thinking uniformed Head of UK Armed Forces. That way, the accountants don't run a war, the shooters do. The shooters decide what they need and the accountants figure out how to pay for it.

Ah well, it's late and I know forums don't solve problems.........

Oh, I know in the 'stan the tide goes out a very long way and doesn't come back. As for the 'fishhead' compliment, thanks but it's wasted. I'm a 25 year ex RAF guy.

[MechGov]

But speaking to Bloomberg News during a trade mission to India, the Chancellor insisted that Trident had to be considered as part of the MoD’s core funding.

He said: “The Trident costs, I have made it absolutely clear, are part of the defence budget.”


If Trident is to be funded from the existing budget on top of the cuts then speculation about cutting a fleet here and a capability gap there won't come close to finding the cash. We are screwed.

[Pontius Navigator]

MGB, it was TiC but flying a chinny to Mozambique is like a slow boat to China.

Balanced force is what is needed not a dozen of one and none of another.

[Blighter Pilot]

If we are going to have to fund Trident/Trident replacement from the defence budget then I have a simple solution.

Scrap Trident and don't replace it!

We can't have an independent nuclear deterrent without substantial,effective conventional forces.

Balanced forces and balance defensive measures?

The UK is not a world player and does anyone really think having a nuclear deterrent will actually deter fanatical rogue states and terrorist groups?

I don't think so.

Scrap Trident - we really cannot afford it now after the Chancellor's comments yesterday.:mad:

[ORAC]

The Times: Fears for RAF as Tornados face axe (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article2666038.ece)

The RAF’s Tornado jet fleet is expected to be grounded after an assessment by the Ministry of Defence leaked to The Times revealed that retiring the aircraft would yield cuts of £7.5 billion.

Scrapping the Tornado, which has been the mainstay of the RAF for more than 30 years, would save billions more than withdrawing the Harrier jet, which is used by the RAF and Royal Navy, internal analysis has found. Savings from scrapping the Harrier Joint Strike Wing, which includes both RAF and Fleet Air Arm squadrons, would be slightly more than £1 billion. Both scenarios are understood to include savings from closing some bases.

The loss of half of Britain’s total fast-jet fleet would raise questions in some quarters about the long-term viability of the RAF. However, sources close to Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, said last night that any suggestion of an amalgamation of the RAF with another Service would be “a bridge too far for any government”.

The document has been drawn up under the continuing Strategic Defence Spending Review. The Treasury is demanding overall cost savings of between 10 and 20 per cent.

At a meeting of the National Security Council last Saturday, Service chiefs and ministers agreed that one of Britain’s three fleets of fast jets would have to be sacrificed to achieve brutal savings demanded by the Treasury.

The “work stream analysis” undertaken by the MoD makes a direct comparison of “through-life savings” that can be achieved from scrapping either the Harrier GR9 or Tornado GR4 fleets. The third fleet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, is only just entering service and is not under consideration.

While MoD insiders insist that no final decision has been made, one senior source told The Times that scrapping the Tornado “could be said to be finding favour” with ministers and Service chiefs. Britain currently retains just over 200 fast jets, including 120 Tornados, 45 Harriers and 42 of the incoming fleet of Eurofighter Typhoons..............

Previously the Harrier and Tornado fleets had been expected to carry on through to their retirements in 2018 and 2025 respectively. A source in the MoD told The Times: “If the Government decides to buy even one [aircraft] carrier, there is no logic in taking Harrier out and then waiting ten years before we effectively get back the capability with the arrival of JCA.” .....

Savings on fast jets are expected to be matched by swingeing cuts in manpower across the Armed Forces. An assessment by the Royal United Services Institute last month expects a reduction of around 25,000 servicemen and 15,000 MoD support staff by 2014.

The Army is expected to offer to put much of its current heavy tank and artillery capability into long-term storage, while the Navy will expect to see reductions in its current fleet and in future orders for Type-45 destroyers and the Type-26 frigate, which has not yet been built and is not expected in service before 2021.

The future of the Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers remains doubtful, according to MoD sources........

[Biggus]

First of all it is politically unacceptable for any party to totally disband the UK armed forces. They are also all seen (possibly even genuinely) falling over themselves to say what a good job are armed forces are doing.........however....


Given the political poo and quagmire that Blair and Brown got into over Iraq (which will always be seen as Blairs legacy) and Afghanistan I cannot see any UK PM being keen to commit British armed forces overseas in the next 10-20 years. With the one noteable exception of contributing some token forces to an international coalition engaged in some cause that has widespread public, even global, support.


Yes surprises happen, but a large UK military won't be kept on that basis. Given the above, although it won't be stated as such, UK military forces will (in my humble opinion) shrink towards what is effectively a national protection organization.


Of course evryone has an opinion, mine might well turn out to be wrong. We will all see in a few months time.... In the meantime all us armchair generals/prime ministers can spectulate. :)

[Wrathmonk]

an assessment by the Ministry of Defence leaked to The Times

one senior source told The Times that scrapping the Tornado “could be said to be finding favour” with ministers and Service chiefs

Wonder what colour cloth the senior source wears? If I recall correctly the Army normally leak via the Telegraph ..... so it must be the Navy :E

Or is this a poor attempt by the RAF to get the 'sympathy' vote?

FWIW I can see both the JFH and GR4 fleets being reduced (in terms of FEAR - my money is on both being halved) and the GR4 OSD being bought forward considerably (depending on when the Typhoon is really ready, rather than media ready). This will (just) keep the 'decks warm' for the RN and maintain (just) a CAS capability that can operate for than 6 months.

Does the statement by the the Chancellor regarding Trident now give the RN a headache - will they have to choose between backing Trident or Carriers? If told to back Trident will that be the death of the Carriers or will the other Services be told to suck up their share from their portion of the pot (and I know technically there is no "pot allocation" for equipment but you get my drift).

[Hamish 123]

If the Tornado fleet does go, what next? Can all the various training establishments for basic and advanced flying training survive? Why not subcontract all pilot training to the USA?

[Pontius Navigator]

Hamish, as I said before, if the Tornado goes it is the navigation training system that can go too. All the Hawks to storage which will extend the life of the Red Arrows. Tucano to pilot training which will extend the life of that stream. Dominies, well who knows, but they are nearly 45 years old.

Manpower wise a huge cull of the traditional fast-jet navs and nav instructors. A cull of the C130k and VC10 navs to follow.

How many Nav/WSO(N) of FOFL/Sqn Ldr are in the system?

[NutLoose]

Good news

RAF Tornado fleet 'faces axe' in bid to save £7bn | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298871/RAF-Tornado-fleet-faces-axe-bid-save-7bn.html)

You will at least need to retain the capability of at least one Helicopter, after all how else with the Minister of Defence get about in these times of severe cutbacks........... Car? Train?.... Perish the thought...

:ooh:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/30/article-1298871-0A8235D1000005DC-267_233x423.jpg

:=

[Melchett01]

I hate to say it, but axing the Tornado fleet does make sense if you are looking to save money and position the RAF for a 2 FJ future as CAS has stated he wants to go to. I'm not saying it's right - and not being GR4/F3 or GR9, I have no axe to grind either way - but it makes some sort of sense.

Bring forward the F3 OSD, ramp up Typhoon AD capability. Halve the number of GR4 sqns now, keep the other half for Afghan ops with a view to bringing their OSD forward in line with a withdrawl from Afghanistan. There would be some aircrew losses (natural wastage?) and you could scrap some of the oldest / sickest hangar queens, thus bolstering the remaining sqns with the remaining jets and crews, to carry on til 2014 before retiring in a blaze of glory with 617 Sqn inspired low level trip up the Thames towards Parliament! This would also tie in with RAPTORs OSD, so we would also be maintaining our recce capability for current ops. This would allow the RAF to argue it was making significant and immediate cuts to it's FJ fleet - and manning when you take the WSO situation in to account - whilst maintaining some sort of residual attack / recce capability, to contribute to current ops.

At the same time, look to ramp up the Typhoon introduction to service, potentially think about getting 3rd gen RAPTOR or maybe Super DJRP as a recce system if you really want to maintain a dedicated recce capability vice an NTISR capability. Also, given that we have already roughly halved the Harrier capability and already announced the closure of Cottesmore, there are potentially limited savings to be made by getting rid of the rest of the Harrier fleet. Keeping what remains of the Harrier fleet on going to maintain a carrier capability until JCA turns up also makes sense and positions us for JCA and the new carriers - it would be a horrendous waste of time, effort and money to get rid of the carrier capability in its entirity only to try and reconstitute it in a few years down the road.

As I said, I don't necessarily think it is right, but if we really are being pushed to save cash and we are moving towards a 2-type FJ fleet, then I can see how it would make sense. As we were discussing over lunch - how far have we come in the past 60 years? Given that 60 years ago we used to be able to put 1000 bombers in the air at any one time and fly to Berlin and back in a night, repeatedly, I really would ask just how far we actually have come now that we are struggling to maintain a capability that sees us struggling to get a handful of jets to theatre.

[Flarkey]

Good and fair post Melchett01.

And I like your thoughts on putting DJRP on Typhoon. :ok: I'm surprised that it hasn't been done already. The updated DJRP is much improved on the old ones.

[dallas]

We send £250m/year to India in development aid. That's the same India that just announced at Farnborough that it might want to double the number of C17s it has on order from 10 to as many as 22.

We have 6, are at war, and are broke. Anyone spot a contradiction anywhere?

[Lyneham Lad]

We send £250m/year to India in development aid. That's the same India that just announced at Farnborough that it might want to double the number of C17s it has on order from 10 to as many as 22.

We have 6, are at war, and are broke. Anyone spot a contradiction anywhere?

As reported on Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/30/345547/indian-hawk-deal-underscores-uks-defence-export-ambitions.html):-

Worth more than £700 million to BAE and Rolls-Royce, India's follow-on order for 57 Hawk 132s marks the UK's latest success with a product that has now been sold to 18 countries.

Give with one hand and get back with the other? Are these things linked? I couldn't possibly comment. :suspect:

[andyy]

Same thing happened many years ago with the WG30 Helicopter.

[StopStart]

We don't send them bags of cash, merely offer economic concessions when it comes to buying stuff from the UK. Hence they buy lots of Hawks - we then benefit from the follow up trade.

[LFFC]

Armed forces stunned by Trident bill (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7920328/Armed-forces-stunned-by-Trident-bill.html)

In a break with historical precedent, George Osborne, the Chancellor, (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7916513/George-Osborne-Trident-is-not-exempt-from-budget-cuts.html) has ruled that the entire cost of the new system must be found from within the day-to-day defence budget.
.
.
One senior defence official said: "It's a stitch-up. There was absolutely no hint of this during the election. The armed forces have been knifed in the back by the Treasury.


Major capabilities such as Britain's two new aircraft carriers may now be axed or delayed, the number of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft is set to be halved and a raft of RAF, Army and Naval bases will be closed in addition to other cuts, to fund the Trident replacement programme


Such are the financial pressures on the MoD that the four-submarine deterrent could be reduced to three or possibly two vessels to save money.

Under the new defence review, the entire Tornado fleet could be axed along with an armoured brigade, artillery regiments, the Nimrod MR2 anti-submarine fleet and RAF Kinloss.

The number of Joint Strike Fighters could be cut from from 150 to 75 and troops withdrawn from Germany.

One of Britain's two new aircraft carriers could also be cancelled.

I guess they really mean the Nimrod MRA4! :ugh:

-----

Meanwhile, Gen Sir Richard Dannatt has made his views clear.

Having to pay for Trident is the Ministry of Defence's worst nightmare (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7920208/Having-to-pay-for-Trident-is-the-Ministry-of-Defences-worst-nightmare.html).

There is no way the current defence programme can be manipulated not only to fund operations in Afghanistan, and to recover from the £35 billion overspend inherited from the previous Government, but also a Trident replacement, the aircraft carrier programme and our acquisition and operation of a host of fast jets.

That seems obvious.

Of course the RAF must have the most capable aircraft available to protect our skies, meaning that we need enough of the latest batch of Typhoon aircraft to do this. But we cannot also afford to keep the ageing Tornadoes and the historic Harriers, of Falklands fame.

This dose of reality impacts on the aircraft carrier programme, too. At £4 billion, the two ships are not actually that expensive – but at £10 billion, the Joint Strike Fighters intended to fly off them most certainly are. This brings the whole project into doubt......

His solutions?

The answers lie with more and smaller ships to secure the sea lanes, and land-based planes whose range is enhanced by a renegotiated air-to-air refuelling programme.

And in case anyone thinks that this retired general is wearing khaki-coloured spectacles, the Army needs to reduce immediately its holdings of main battle tanks and heavy artillery, and its presence in Germany.

So apart from Typhoon, what land-based, AAR capable, [offensive] aircraft would those be if Tornado, Harrier and JSF are off the menu? :rolleyes:

[Twon]

I'm sure I'll be accused of stirring up an anti civil service argument but looking at the quote "An assessment by the Royal United Services Institute last month expects a reduction of around 25,000 servicemen and 15,000 MoD support staff by 2014.", I find it a little surprising given that there are already more civil servants than military.

Why, in these times of cutbacks, will there be an even more disproportionate number of civil servants to uniformed manpower? Is it because they can strike if the cuts are too unpalatable. I guess we just bend over again!

[LFFC]

There aren't more civil servants than military in the MOD! See this post (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/415778-mod-cut-25-coalition-says-6.html#post5831594).

Poor reporting I'm afraid; don't believe everything you read.

[thebarrel]

A few attacks on 32 Sqn on this thread. I think there's some ignorance about what it does and how it is funded. I understood the Royals pay for their usage themselves. Also that the annual running costs are very small and contribute enormously to efficiency - I personally would prefer the important decision makers to be able to whizz round efficiently to several appointments rather than stuck in traffic and ineffective.

The fixed wing part of 32 Sqn was almost exclusively operating in theatre last time I asked, though that was not recently. I also heard that the rotary element (3 Agusta 109s?) had been chopped anyway.

Anyone shed any more light?

The fixed wing element of 32(The Royal) Sqn have been continuously deployed since 2001. There are 2 aircraft permanently in the Gulf, operating in both theatres.The service they provide obviously saves a valuable Herc or C17 from doing that job, as the tasking can be anywhere. The Sqn haven't flown Ministerial tasking or Civil Servants for a number of years now; the Royals when they fly pay the MOD just as if they were going to NetJets or something and that is only a surplus capability.

I'm sure it was admin-ers shouting for them to be cut...I do like the JPA controller's view of cost saving...why don't we just bin all the aircraft and pilots?

For actual cost saving, and please correct me if I'm wrong, surely the University Air Sqn is the place to start? UAS cadets get paid to attend, there are Grobs, QFIs and Serco personnel stewn across the UK, not to mention valuable property (has anyone seen the CUAS building?). A tri-service ops-focused OTC is what is required; the UAS system to me is a throwback to the flying club days.

Can we not part-civilianise C4i? I'm yet to actually get hold of a real person, just the infernal woman answerphone of the dreaded SPOC.

Finally, perhaps we should do what the Danish have and allow personnel to fly into theatre on non-DASS equipped aircraft. Controversial, but would allow us to charter direct to Afghan and scrap Tristar now, saving a monumentous amount of money.

The barrel for chancellor! Hurrah! :}

[Wyler]

Not all CS are pen pushers.

I am an instructor at a Training School. I left the RAF after 23 years service because I was tired of the continual upheaval and time away from home. The RAF now get the benefit of my experience for 40% of the cost of a senior Flt Lt. The RAF also gets continuity. I get to do a job I still enjoy and I get stability which = Quality of Life. Everybody wins. There are many more like me.

I am not taking a job from a regular, there are not enough to fill the posts and experience is at a premium.

If anything, you may see more people like me over the next few years because it is a cheap way of getting all of the above.

So, when talking about getting rid of CS, please remember the first line of my post.

ps: I would love my job to go to a Private Sector provider. Then I could get a more representative salary.

[Joe Black]

So apart from Typhoon, what land-based, AAR capable, [offensive] aircraft would those be if Tornado, Harrier and JSF are off the menu?

There's an aircraft in production at the time of speaking which has a very uncertain future...MRA4 - the "A" seems to always be overlooked and not taken seriously. An ISTAR platform with 15hours endurance, AAR capable, huge bomb bay(capable of carrying a multitude of weapons) - is it just me or are we missing a trick......or does it have to be fast and pointy to drop bombs??:ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

how far have we come in the past 60 years? Given that 60 years ago we used to be able to put 1000 bombers in the air at any one time and fly to Berlin and back in a night, repeatedly, I really would ask just how far we actually have come now that we are struggling to maintain a capability that sees us struggling to get a handful of jets to theatre.

That 1,000 bombers was only a slight overkill but given a CEP of 400 yards most would have been needed to hit just one bridge.

Today any single fast-jet can destroy that bridge with better than 75% probability. To guarantee a kill a 4-ship would be sufficient.

Night after night was also an exageration. True some raids were back to back but the sorties were both weather and moon dependent. Now they can be day after day and night night after night and largely independent of weather although weather can still be significant.

That is how far we have come.

[Mr C Hinecap]

As we were discussing over lunch - how far have we come in the past 60 years? Given that 60 years ago we used to be able to put 1000 bombers in the air at any one time and fly to Berlin and back in a night, repeatedly, I really would ask just how far we actually have come now that we are struggling to maintain a capability that sees us struggling to get a handful of jets to theatre.

Apples and oranges there dear chap. You can't really compare

- fairly agricultural platforms flown from a home base with a whole country geared towards a war effort, to

- technologically advanced platforms flown from the other end of a very tenuous logistics chain while the rest of the nation goes about business as usual.