More UK defence cuts!

[TBM-Legend]

Fresh Wave of Defence Cuts On Way


(Source: British Forces Broadcasting Service; published May 16, 2011)



The armed forces face a further wave of cuts in the next financial year as the Ministry of Defence seeks to make more savings. A three-month study, reporting in July, will consider how more personnel and equipment programmes could be axed.

It follows October's controversial Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) which outlined measures to slash thousands of personnel, scrap the Harrier fleet and Nimrod spy planes and retire the HMS Ark Royal aircraft carrier.

The Ministry of Defence insisted it was not reopening the SDSR but said it was looking at balancing "defence priorities and the budget over the long-term".

"The three-month study is part of that work to ensure we match our assumptions with our spending settlement," a spokesman said.

"We have made it clear that while the SDSR had made substantial inroads into the £38bn funding deficit, there is still more to be done."

The deep cuts unveiled last year set out the future shape and size of Britain's armed forces.

Under the proposals, the defence budget is to fall by 8% over the next four years. The MoD is to cut its civilian personnel by 25,000 by 2015; Army numbers will be reduced by 7,000 to 95,500; Navy manpower will be cut by 5,000 to 30,000; RAF forces will be reduced by 5,000 to 33,000 and tanks and heavy artillery numbers will be reduced by 40%.

However, the MoD now wants to make further savings for the financial year ending in March 2012.

Potential targets reportedly include HMS Illustrious, Britain's last surviving aircraft carrier, which is due back from a refit next year.

It is also reported that plans for a new fleet of armoured vehicles could also be singled out for the axe. :ooh:

[Heathrow Harry]

Could actually be titled "more ghastly cost overruns loom in defense budget"

actually if you look closely they are getting in a pre-emptive strike against the govt

The govt said it will look at defence funding based on Libya later this year and decide what (if any) extra cash might be made available

the MoD are saying "ooo they haven't promised anything written in Dave's blood so IF we don't get more then we have to think about more cuts" and leak it to the press

Classic piece of Sir Humphryism

[Wrathmonk]

Potential targets reportedly include HMS Illustrious

Uh oh. That's going to cause some angst (on here), gnashing of teeth (in the South / South West) and some very stern letter writing to the Telegraph (and the Sun;)) in the not too distant future ....

Although, in reality isn't this just the "standard" annual planning round (that was, IIRC, meant to be every two years....)

[Heathrow Harry]

The giveaway is that the "possible cuts" list the most important items for each service - just to make sure the "Dear Sir.. Outraged of Bournemouth" mob get properly stirred up :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Sunk at Narvik]

I dunno, people whinge when the public take no interest and when we do we are "angry of Bournemouth".

Make up your minds!

[Double Zero]

Well as long as bankers ( which includes this miserable excuse for a UK government ) and their chums on the golf course are OK, while our 'can do' services mistakenly keep on struggling, this will go on happening until / unless we get another 9/11 or are invaded.

The UK has already been occupied by stealth, by people who are less caring and have caused more damage than Goering could have envisaged in his wildest dreams.

[minigundiplomat]

All the seats taken on the outrage bus then - already!

[snagged1]

"Well as long as bankers ( which includes this miserable excuse for a UK government ) and their chums on the golf course are OK, while our 'can do' services mistakenly keep on struggling, this will go on happening until / unless we get another 9/11 or are invaded."

Wow, theres a bit of envy in that post! If you want to join in, then get of your a** and join the rat race in the city or become an admin officer in the raf.
The country is broke. There is no money. Get over it, and get on with it. Whilst I agree that there should be more cuts in some areas (overseas aid, benefits, etc), there have to be cuts everywhere, thanks to Labour's disasterous run at being in charge...
Had they planned a bit better (and not sold most of our national gold resources when gold was at it's lowest trading value for over 1000 years) then we would have been better off! Rest assured, the blame for the financial hardships in UK (including the defence cuts) lies firmly on Labour's doorstep.

"The UK has already been occupied by stealth, by people who are less caring and have caused more damage than Goering could have envisaged in his wildest dreams."

Yes, they are called labour voters who kept labour lunatics in power for 13 long years to get us in this mess... labour has done wonders at breeding an entire class who will always vote for them to make sure they get lots of benefits and bloated state paid jobs.

[Really annoyed]

That's it then, end of thread. We have had the obligatory blaming the previous government post.

[snagged1]

"That's it then, end of thread. We have had the obligatory blaming the previous government post"

Indeed... which was in response to the usual b****cks banker bashing/class post....:ugh:

[Geehovah]

I don't think this is any more than the BBC pointing out that the annual blood letting is in process. Maybe with more awareness, some of the savage cuts may be reversed? I know, I live in hope................:ugh:

[Finningley Boy]

[QUOTE]
All the seats taken on the outrage bus then - already!
[QUOTE]

MGD,

I'll shuffle further down the aisle so you've got some standing room as well!:ok:

FB:)

[minigundiplomat]

Cheers chap - wouldn't want to miss this!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I believe the collective noun for bankers is "a wunch of.."

[Double Zero]

"Well as long as bankers ( which includes this miserable excuse for a UK government ) and their chums on the golf course are OK, while our 'can do' services mistakenly keep on struggling, this will go on happening until / unless we get another 9/11 or are invaded."
Wow, theres a bit of envy in that post!

Envy ? As in the way I envy people inserting their whatnots into ducted fans...

It's not for nothing bankers and their like are rhyming slang.:yuk:

[glad rag]

Indeed... which was in response to the usual b****cks banker bashing/class post

And WHY NOT? the b'stards are screwing the people in this country over, are not lending to businesses [as part of their bail out mandate] to support the recovery and are highly agressive for the "ordinary" man in the street when times are hard.

No I DON'T think his post is out of order...

[Could be the last?]

The review is coming to the UK's largest aircraft carrier later this month, and having just survived one review what's the chance it will survive a second?????
:suspect:

[Finningley Boy]

Three rousing great cheers for Dr. Liam Fox!:ok: Seriously, for leaking another privately letter to Dave Cameron saying where he thinks he ought to lodge those overseas aid donations!

Don't mean to be nasty, but there is definite room for reassessing just where it all goes. Furthermore, there are no Tories like Scots Tories!:D

FB:)

[Could be the last?]

British ships protected by borrowed US spy plane in Libya - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8515781/British-ships-protected-by-borrowed-US-spy-plane-in-Libya.html)

And the SDSR is not being reviewed.............:ugh:

[Al R]

Classic piece of Sir Humphryism

Instead, 'Lady' Ursula Brennan? The consequences of her, at least.

[Whenurhappy]

Could be the last:

This is a bit of a non-story. For nigh on 60 years NATO nations have practiced combined, joint operations. There is absolutely nothing unusual in Allied nations providing other capabilities.

Admittedly, we couldn't do this by outrselves now.

[TBM-Legend]

The "EU Air Force" should look after it. German P-3's eg..

[Melchett01]

So when there is talk about resurrecting capability, that would be classed as re-opening the SDSR and is strictly verboeten and the SDSR will not be reviewed. But when the talk is of slashing more capability that is a study.

Erm ... really. Do they think we are stupid enough to buy the constant lies and spin? I wonder if politicians have a patron saint - if not my vote would be for the Roman god Janus to take on the job.

[Red Line Entry]

Melchett,

I don't see any contradiction here. According to the government, SDSR has not solved the entire affordability problem, thus more work is required and more capability MAY be lost. So taking more cuts, while we obviously don't want them, is the logical next step.

What would not make sense would be to revisit cuts that have already been agreed and reverse them.

I think there is still a lot of reluctance to recognise hard realities. Unless we think Joe Public is going to pressure the government into giving more money for defence, then we have to live within our budget. If our current plans are still unaffordable, then we WILL get more cuts. Anything else is dreaming.

BTW - The patron saint of politicians is Thomas More - who ended up having his head cut off by the king!

[Wander00]

Not sure Dr Fox is actually proposing changing anything that will make more money available for services (or The Services") in the UK. All he is arguing about is the extent to which the overseas aid percentage is legally binding. Bit like the Military Covenant really!

[Heathrow Harry]

Comrade Fox is becoming a real pain to No.10 - I foresee a "redeployment" to Sport Minister if he's not careful

[Geehovah]

Maybe a useful addition to this post would be a list of the commitments that were cut during SDSR. Without a reduction in task, the SDSR was another thinly disguised defence cut.

QRA
AFG
Falklands
Add Libya
etc, etc.........

[LFFC]

After the RN and RAF were savaged last October, it looks like the Army is about to take its turn sooner than expected!

Liam Fox: British Army will be cut further after Afghanistan mission (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8524322/Liam-Fox-British-Army-will-be-cut-further-after-Afghanistan-mission.html)

It certainly puts into focus yesterday's news about the spiralling cost of the Trident replacement.

New Trident fleet cost will top £25bn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/18/new-trident-fleet-funding)

:(

[Finningley Boy]

Is the chance of an air launched system once again, as has been mooted, at all viable does anyone think?:confused:

FB:)

[tonker]

Stick a few silos on Diego Garcia for the end of the world and to placate our "we are still a big power" side, and then please start spending the money on defending the coastline thats 10 miles away and the airspace above my head.

Lots of bigger, wealthier and equally important countries as ours seem to manage! £25 Billion buys a lot of stuff, not that it would go back to the MOD.

[glad rag]

£25 Billion buys a lot of stuff, not that it would go back to the MOD.
Has the funding of the trident replacement been swapped to another government department again?

meanwhile...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13460836 (http://www.pprune.org/British%20forces%20will%20face%20%22significant%20shortages% 22%20of%20armoured%20vehicles%20until%202025%20unless%20extr a%20investment%20is%20found,%20a%20public%20spending%20watch dog%20has%20warned)

British forces will face "significant shortages" of armoured vehicles until 2025 unless extra investment is found, a public spending watchdog has warned

[Melchett01]

Is the chance of an air launched system once again, as has been mooted, at all viable does anyone think?

Launched from what???

And I don't meant to be facetious in saying that. But we are shedding airframes at a worryingly rapid rate, and apart from having the platform to actually hang it off, I'm not convinced the associated infrastructure both physical on stations and enabling patforms exists. How many airframes did it take to keep a nuclear Q going before we handed the responsibility to the RN? How many B-52s did the USAF require to keep their airborne nuclear alert going during the height of the Cold War?

And then the costs of converting to an air launched system and integrating it on a platform would no doubt not meet with treasury approval in these straightened times. You might get away with converting Storm Shadow or adding to the TLAM fleet with air launched nuclear tipped, but again it's down to costs. I hate to say it but for now, I think this one will stay with the RN on the grounds of at least its a proven capability and (relatively) known costs.

[Finningley Boy]

Melchett,

Its the cost of a like for like replacement which has prompted the debate. Of all parliamentarians, its the Lib Dems who have suggested it along with the ludicrous notion of a shared deterrent with France. The latter can be dismissed with a single straight forward scenario; what if we feel the need and they don't? or vice versa.

At the point of handing over the Deterrent to the R.N. in 1969, the R.A.F. maintained, at that point, 5 squadrons with Blue Steel, Vulcan and Victor, with 5 more Vulcan squadrons, 3 at Waddington and 2 at Akrotiri with WE177s. As soon as the transfer occurred, that is within some weeks, I believe 4 of the 5 Blue Steel sqns disbanded. The one which was left, 617, soldiered on with the Waddington and Akrotiri Vulcans in the standby role with the WE177.

If it is determined to be cheaper (being the principal aim) to go down an airborne deterrent route again, then they'd need to look at an off the shelf aircraft I suppose. I can't see the GR4 being refurbished sufficiently to meet the requirement in the long term, nor the Typhoon for that matter. The best option might be the F35C or the F15 Silent Eagle? In which case, one would expect more of these to be bought than planned, over and above the order for conventional requirements. Another more radical option would be Taranis? I believe any of these platforms could be equipped to carry an ALCM with sufficient range to launch from a safe distance.

Anyone else?

FB:)

[TBM-Legend]

let's get the fabled TSR-2 going again....:hmm:

[PS: was there a TSR-1????]

[Rector16]

Simple answer to all the air-launched possibilities discussed above is in Wednesday's MoD News Release:

'Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox has today announced that approval has been given for the early phase of design of the submarine that will deliver the UK's nuclear deterrent well into the 2060s.'

The bit about alternatives is covered later:

'The Coalition Agreement reflected the desire of the Liberal Democrats to continue to make the case for alternatives. That is why the Defence Secretary has also announced the initiation of a study to be undertaken by the Cabinet Office and overseen by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to review the costs, feasibility and credibility of alternative systems.'

[navibrator]

Doesn't matter what the design is or isn't. A submarine is going to be pretty damned expensive. Anyway, world ends on Saturday after some big earthquake so it will not be a problem.

See you Monday!

[jamesdevice]

"PS: was there a TSR-1????"

yes - the Canberra (name given retrospectively when they were planning TSR-2)

[camacho]

The Economist's take. My bold :

The first casualty
The intervention in Libya has cast fresh doubt on the wisdom of last year’s cost-cutting defence review
May 19th 2011 | from the print edition

War on the cheap
“NO BATTLE plan ever survives first contact with the enemy,” Helmuth von Moltke, a 19th-century head of the Prussian army, famously observed. That is amply true of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) published by the government last October. Paul Cornish of Chatham House, a think-tank, thinks it might prove “one of the fastest failures in modern British strategic history”.

David Cameron’s resolve to take a leading role in Libya immediately called into question one of the main, if unspoken, assumptions underlying the SDSR: that no more “wars of choice” would be fought until the exchequer was flusher. So far, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is just about coping with the demands of the Libyan intervention; the Treasury has not yet balked at meeting the costs from its reserve, even as they spiral. But it would have been a different story if the Libyan crisis had blown up only a few months later—because the campaign has relied on precisely the sort of air and maritime assets that the SDSR, preoccupied as it was with the land war in Afghanistan, blithely calculated that Britain could do without.

For example, HMS Cumberland, one of four Type-22 frigates identified for retirement, was on its way home to be decommissioned before it was sent into action, first ferrying British nationals to safety and then helping to enforce the maritime exclusion zone off the coast of Libya. Similarly, the Nimrod R1 reconnaissance aircraft, due to be scrapped in March, has won a stay of execution because it was needed in Libya. The brunt of Britain’s contribution to striking at the Libyan regime’s military infrastructure has been borne by Tornado GR4s. The number of Tornado squadrons is scheduled to be reduced from seven to five next month.

And had the SDSR not decided that Britain could take the risk of going a decade without an aircraft-carrier, the already decommissioned HMS Ark Royal and its Harrier jets would have joined carriers from France, Italy and America off the Libyan coast. Able to respond more quickly than the Tornados that are flying from Italy, the Harriers would have been especially handy for attacking Muammar Qaddafi’s tanks and mobile rocket-launchers. It turns out that much of the “legacy equipment for which there is no requirement”—to quote the SDSR—is still pretty useful.

The Libyan mission has also highlighted the weakness in Britain’s broader strategic thinking. Hew Strachan of Oxford University says the SDSR is “strategy-light”, and fails to convince on either China or the Middle East—the “two areas where big and really difficult conflicts could occur”. Afghanistan aside, he fears that British thinking attempts “to map a world 30 years away” and is not focused enough on the “immediate and unexpected”. Michael Clarke, the director of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), another think-tank, struggles to find evidence of strategic thinking that goes much beyond being America’s “most loyal ally”—and says there has been little reflection on what that notion actually means nowadays. Observers also wonder where responsibility for military strategy ultimately lies in the British system: in the MOD, the new National Security Council or with the overstretched prime minister?

The last hurrah

Liam Fox, the defence secretary, gamely argues that the Libyan operation is a one-off that could not have been predicted. But his private dissatisfaction with the defence settlement is palpable. This week a letter from Dr Fox to Mr Cameron, in which the former took issue with the government’s plan to enshrine in law its aim of raising international-aid spending to 0.7% of GDP, was leaked, as was another letter from Dr Fox to the prime minister about defence cuts last year.

His discomfort is likely to worsen. Dr Fox maintains that revising the SDSR would make sense only if the government suddenly decided to give defence more cash—which would mean either backsliding on cutting the country’s fiscal deficit or taking money from health, education or something else closer to the hearts of most voters than bombing Tripoli. In fact, the only changes under serious discussion involve even deeper and faster cuts in capability than those announced last year—which might not be anything like enough to bring spending into line with the actual defence budget.

Andrew Dorman, who lectures at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, reckons that the defence budget is set to shrink by between 20% and 30% in real terms, rather than the publicised figure of 8%. That is because the Treasury has left it to the MoD to sort out the £38 billion ($61 billion) black hole in spending commitments left by the previous government, plus the unbudgeted costs of replacing Britain’s ballistic-missile submarine fleet.

Mr Dorman expects new cuts to be announced soon that will include (among other things) speeding up plans to reduce the number of army units, and cancelling the remaining order for Chinook heavy-lift helicopters in anticipation of British combat forces leaving Afghanistan by 2015. However, he and others believe that Dr Fox needs to be still more radical, and that the pace of administrative reforms should be accelerated, culling not only the top-heavy civilian side of the MoD but also the bloated ranks of senior officers: proportional to its size, the British Army has four times as many generals as the US Army.

The crude ring-fencing by the SDSR of capabilities supposedly required for Afghanistan has created another pressing problem: a worsening imbalance between the various parts of the armed forces. Malcolm Chalmers of RUSI calculates that, by 2015, land forces will account for around 65% of total service personnel, compared with current levels of around 55% in America and France, 53% in Canada and 50% in Australia. One partial solution, advocated in a recent paper by Sir Graeme Lamb, a former director of special forces, and Colonel Richard Williams, a former commander of the SAS, would be to move to an army of 75,000, rather than the intended 95,000 (itself down from 102,000), with a larger and more integrated reserve component.

The basic question for British strategy is whether the ways and means implied by the SDSR can support the government’s still-ambitious military goals. Or, to put it another way, whether the government’s eyes for embarking on high-minded adventures of the Libyan kind are bigger than its stomach for resourcing them.

[Wensleydale]

Not sure Dr Fox is actually proposing changing anything that will make more money available for services (or The Services") in the UK. All he is arguing about is the extent to which the overseas aid percentage is legally binding. Bit like the Military Covenant really!


Bit of Thread Crossing.... I wonder if the Indians are buying Typhoon on the back of overseas aid contributions?

[Heathrow Harry]

The only official TSR-1 was the the Fairey S.9/30 - a two-seat, single-engined biplane fleet reconnaissance aircraft. It flew during 1934-6 in both land- and seaplane configurations.

Although only one was built, it was the progenitor of the Fairey Swordfish

[Obi Wan Russell]

... And the Fairey Swordfish was the original TSR 2!;):eek::ok::E:p

[Jig Peter]

Bit of a nit-pick ... Sorry !
Didn't the Fairey TSRs' "T" stand for TORPEDO, while for the (much regretted) English Electric one's stood for TACTICAL ...

[LFFC]

Fox warns of more cuts to armed forces (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fox-warns-of-more-cuts-to-armed-forces-2293869.html)- The Independent, 7 Jun 11


There will be further substantial changes to the armed forces, including significant cuts in the Army, Navy and RAF, the Defence Secretary Liam Fox said yesterday.

Speaking at a Conservative Home conference in Westminster on security and development, Mr Fox said the Government had to face the "harsh economic reality" that the formulation of defence policies "begin and end with money".

The Ministry of Defence will therefore begin a process of across-the-board cuts, changing the way in which all frontline deployments operate. Among the measures being considered are a reduction and conciliation of current single-purpose army groups into larger "multi-role brigades", a continued consultation on future naval equipment and the "slimming down" of the number of RAF fleets.

However, the Defence Secretary was keen to reassure Britain's allies of his department's commitment to continued investment in European Typhoon fighter jets and American C17 military transport planes, which have played a key role in Nato's air campaign in Libya.

In his parting message to Tory MPs and party supporters worried about defence cuts, Mr Fox said: "If you want to spend more on defence, tell me which taxes you want to raise or which cuts you want to make to other programmes."

"It's a tough message but it's one Britain has to face."


:uhoh: If we thought last October was bad, it looks like the worst is yet to come!

[Biggus]

...and another thread is discussing the possible UK purchase of 5 P-8s...!


Not for quite a few years I think - if ever! :{

[RetiredSHRigger]

On the P8 issue it could be 5 of these Ryman Address Labels P8 Universal 99x68mm 8 per A4 Sheet 25 sheets (http://www.ryman.co.uk/0220013460/Ryman-Address-Labels-P8-Universal-99x68mm-8-per-A4-Sheet-25-sheets/Product)

So then they could post the redundancy letters instead of face to face :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Siggie]

On the P8 issue it could be 5 of these Ryman Address Labels P8 Universal 99x68mm 8 per A4 Sheet 25 sheets
That'd mean they'd need to stump up 31.45, there goes the other carrier.

[draken55]

In his parting message to Tory MPs and party supporters worried about defence cuts, Mr Fox said: "If you want to spend more on defence, tell me which taxes you want to raise or which cuts you want to make to other programmes. It's a tough message but it's one Britain has to face."

Well Mr Fox if that is the case perhaps we now need to face up to the fact that Trident is really a foreign policy tool with the liklehood of the UK ever needing to contemplate its use in isolation from our Allies about as remote as can be imagined. So is it now time to give up the pretence that it serves any real defence purpose rather than ending up with conventional forces that are that small they are no longer fit for purpose?

Off to put my tin hat on now.:*

[Lima Juliet]

Would the honourable gentleman care to answer why we have less combat aircraft than we have MPs, MSPs, MEPs and the membership of the National Assemblies of Wales and Northern Island? Why they earn £60k+ a year with a very generous allowance package and accrue a final salary pension of 1/40th for every year they work, when the Armed Forces are being told to take huge allowance and likely pension reductions plus reductions in equipment?

Somebody has their "snout in the trough" don't they SoS? And it isn't the Queen's most loyal servants that risk life and limb for their country...

:mad:

LJ

[GeeRam]

In his parting message to Tory MPs and party supporters worried about defence cuts, Mr Fox said: "If you want to spend more on defence, tell me which taxes you want to raise or which cuts you want to make to other programmes. It's a tough message but it's one Britain has to face."

Not a tough at all you stupid politian...... :rolleyes:

Transfer the whole of the ludicrous foreign aid budget to Defense for starters .... simples.

[Trim Stab]

Transfer the whole of the ludicrous foreign aid budget to Defense for starters .... simples.


I disagree. Foreign aid, when properly targeted, builds stable, democratic countries. Stable, democratic countries very rarely start wars (one of the few exceptions being the US/UK invasion of Iraq). Even rarer is for two democratic countries to go to war with each other.

We would quite possibly not be at war in Afghanistan right now if foreign aid there had been used to build a functioning society rather than propping up various friendly autocrats.

[Climebear]

Even rarer is for two democratic countries to go to war with each other.

The last time was all of 3 years ago. Georgia vs Russia (doesn't matter what we may think about the 'style' of their democracies; they were - and still are - democratic states).

[Trim Stab]

The last time was all of 3 years ago. Georgia vs Russia (doesn't matter what we may think about the 'style' of their democracies; they were - and still are - democratic states).


Russia and Georgia are not regarded as democracies by Economist Intelligence Unit - they are regarded as hybrid regimes - Georgia at 103, Russia at 107.

Democracy Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index)

[Climebear]

Hence my qoute about what we (or in this case a western magazine) think about their style of democracy. Their government's are elected by the population - hence they are democracies in its basic form.



Nice to see that the UK ranks higher than France (a 'flawed democracy') though. :ok:

[teeteringhead]

So is it now time to give up the pretence that it serves any real defence purpose ... ahhh, but if we didn't have Trident, then that nice Irishman (sic) Barry O'Bama wouldn't come round to No 10 for a barbie ......;)

[LFFC]

£10bn 'black hole' means new defence cuts loom - The Telegraph 24 Jun 11 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8597366/10bn-black-hole-means-new-defence-cuts-loom.html)


The Daily Telegraph has learned that Ministry of Defence officials have calculated that the department is at least £10 billion short of what it will need in the coming years.

The financial “mismatch” is larger than all the defence cuts announced in last year’s Spending Review, and has raised fears of another round of painful reductions in the Armed Forces.
.
.
James Arbuthnot, the chairman of the Commons defence committee this week suggested that the MoD was now seeking savings of £8 billion.

But MoD insiders said the new black hole is actually higher than that and likely to be “in the teens of billions”.

[high spirits]

Surely a black hole within a black hole is impossible.......

[Phil_R]

Would it be hopelessly uncharitable to suggest that the actual amount of money being applied (being large in world terms) is not actually the problem?

I appreciate that there are practical limits, but isn't the defence spending issue really more about not giving BAE the PIN code to the MoD's metaphorical credit card account, and similar situations?

My, what an outburst, I do apologise...

[dallas]

Surely a black hole within a black hole is impossible.......
I'm sure Cameron will turn this double negative into a positive :hmm:

[Willard Whyte]

... ahhh, but if we didn't have Trident, then that nice Irishman (sic) Barry O'Bama wouldn't come round to No 10 for a barbie ...

I bet black Barrie doesn't attend too many BBQ's down Alabama way.

[Non Emmett]

Come on gents,let's get real. You all know we need these cuts, after all, where do you think the compensation for our unfortuantes in prison is going to come from..........

[green granite]

I see that according to the Sunday Times, having axed pilots at the training stage, the government is now offering £100,000 to 'senior pilots' to sign on for another 5 years.

[ORAC]

Grauniad: £25bn defence shortfall leaves Cameron and Osborne at odds (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/18/defence-spending-25bn-cameron-osborne)

Exclusive: Chancellor holding back extra funding needed for modernisation, with MoD calling for PM to intervene

David Cameron is locked in a standoff with his chancellor over defence spending after a secret study concluded the government will need to find an extra £25bn to pay for its modernisation of the armed forces.

The Guardian has learned that a three-month internal analysis of the Ministry of Defence's chaotic budget has found the department will not be able to pay for the programmes agreed in last year's strategic defence and security review without a huge injection of cash – or a savage round of fresh cuts.

George Osborne has been refusing to give the defence secretary, Liam Fox, any promises about funding beyond 2014/15, even though many programmes need to be signed off in the coming months to have any chance of coming in on time and on budget. From private discussions with the MoD's most senior officials, the Guardian understands that the prime minister has also dug his heels in. He has refused to sanction any further cuts to defence capabilities before the next election, even though the department is already far over budget.

One senior Whitehall official said the Cameron and his chancellor appeared to be in a power struggle – and they needed to resolve the situation quickly. "We are going round in circles," said the source.

The three-month review began in the spring as the MoD tried to tackle an estimated £1bn overspend for last year, as well as determine costs for the contracts that need to be signed for the changes set out in the SDSR. Downing Street has already conceded that if the armed forces are to become Future Force 2020 the MoD will need real-term budget increases from 2014/15 onwards. But defence officials were not sure how much extra money would be needed.

In a series of secret meetings with top officials from the Treasury, Cabinet Office and No 10, the MoD argued it will need rises of inflation-plus-3% every year until 2020/21 to meet its targets. The Guardian understands the sums were not disputed. Without them the MoD will be unable to create Future Force 2020 within the timescale. If the MoD's budget remains constant between 2014/15 and 2020/21 the department will be £20bn short of what it needs – at current prices. Allowing for inflation that rises to £25bn over six years. The MoD believes it has convinced officials across Whitehall that its problems are as great as it says.

It [The Treasury] does not want to set a precedent that other departments might seek to follow, and it points to the MoD's well-earned reputation for mismanaging money as another reason not to make any commitments now.

"The essential underlying problem remains the same," said the source. "The chancellor doesn't want to give defence any more money because if he makes a special case then what will happen next? Every other department will be asking to be made a special case. But what the prime minister is not prepared to countenance is further cuts. Defence has been on this painful trajectory since the SDSR came out last year. The only way the Treasury will move is if David Cameron comes down on the side of defence. The prime minister recognises that the MoD will need real term increases to meet the SDSR commitments."

Until then the permanent secretary at the MoD, Ursula Brennan, is stalling on signing contracts until she is sure she will have the money to pay for them.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers, from the Royal United Services Institute thinktank, said there were "no easy choices left" and that the MoD needed to make decisions now about new tanks, submarines and aircraft.

"Without an explicit commitment soon to significant real terms growth in defence spending between 2014 and 2020, the SDSR vision for UK forces in 2020 is not affordable. Getting a commitment after the next election is too late unless the MoD is prepared to sign contracts without knowing whether it can afford to fund them. If the defence budget does not grow significantly in real terms after 2014/15, there could be a six-year funding gap – between what is needed to fund Future Force 2020 and what is available – of around £25bn. If decisions are not taken soon, either to approve significant real defence spending growth after 2014 or to make further cuts in capabilities, the MoD will become increasingly reluctant to approve new financial commitments."

Chalmers said the government had been "refreshingly frank" about the problems with the defence budget but if it could not commit to new spending "further difficult capability choices cannot be avoided".

The armed forces will have made redundant up to 17,000 servicemen and women by 2015, but further job losses are expected after the British mission in Afghanistan begins to wind down in the next parliament.

[Widger]

Now it is the public domain, you can add that to the 'why I decided to PVR' thread.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/457101-reasons-why-i-want-pvr.html#post6566666

[FODPlod]

If the 1998 SDR had been properly funded through the years of plenty, we wouldn't be in such a mess now. As it is, the Defence budget was virtually flat-lined and, as exposed to Gordon Brown's later embarrassment, even reduced in some years while the Education, Health and Social Security budgets doubled and even tripled.

In the meantime we have been fighting concurrent wars with all the extra wear and tear on ships, aircraft, vehicles and other equipment which isn't paid for out of Treasury contingency funds.

What's the point of conducting defence reviews constrained by financial considerations and then failing to fund them anyway?