SDSR 15

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

the green army will probably bear the brunt of them


Less green army means fewer helicopters needed to support green army. I also agree with Melchett that half the carriers, about half the F-35s and all the Tornados are probably doomed.

[just another jocky]

Stitch, not to mention the RN as well. It seems the Senior and Junior Services have always considered that flying helicopters requires a University education AND the knowledge of which knife and fork to use! :ok:

Curiously, that statement says more about your own prejudices than it does about the recruitment policy of the the RN or RAF.

Yes, I know it was tongue in cheek.....:rolleyes:

[Biggus]

If you're looking for a bean counter type method of saving money, I offer the following.

Many years ago the UK armed forces formally declared they were becoming a Monday to Friday only outfit. How I hear you ask? When the leave (absence :ugh::ugh:) rules changed so that you only needed to claim for Mondays to Fridays, weekends didn't count.

Since you don't need leave for weekends, you can't be working weekends any more - therefore cuts every bodies pay by two sevenths to reflect that fact.

Simples!!

[kintyred]

The economy may not be universally rosy but there is a lot of money to be made out there. My son, 3 years out of college and qualified in a manual trade is now on £50k and seems to be nowhere near his ceiling. His Dad, who left the mob a few years ago wouldn't even get out of bed for that! Aviation is not the only game in town!

[Melchett01]

The economy may not be universally rosy but there is a lot of money to be made out there. ... Aviation is not the only game in town!

A good friend in the Army is short finals to get out having seen his relatively junior (second tourist) wife be head hunted by the city after going a careers fair just to see what was out there after a lousy week at work. He's now engineering a similar move and will be leaving his on appt Major salary for what is effectively a wg cdr's salary plus pension and none of the grief that seems to be par for the course.

I'm watching how things go for him with interest. What I have learned so far from his experience is that we seem to be institutionally incapable of selling ourselves properly.

[glad rag]

Less green army means fewer helicopters needed to support green army. I also agree with Melchett that half the carriers, about half the F-35s [-]and all the Tornados are probably doomed.[/-]

I believe that, currently, you are partially mistaken.

It costs [relatively] peanuts to maintain and operate the Tornado for starters. Spare components are reclaimed at Leeming, the aircraft belong to US, so we can adapt them to whatever the most urgent need is, try doing that to Typhoon or [HaHaHaHa] the next to useless F-35 :}

[Willard Whyte]

It costs [relatively] peanuts to maintain and operate the Tornado for starters. Spare components are reclaimed at Leeming, the aircraft belong to US, so we can adapt them to whatever the most urgent need is, try doing that to Typhoon or [HaHaHaHa] the next to useless F-35

Ah, but glad rag, you're using logic where it has never been used before.

[SaddamsLoveChild]

Can we eventually get rid of the Reds......which will save the AOC and his entourage costing the tax payer for a holiday in Greece....

[Ken Scott]

That should deliver the kind of savings needed to pay off the national debt.....

[Bannock]

So, with a majority Government in the bag , what do you reckon to an early SDSR announcement ?

[pr00ne]

Bannock,

With the Nasty party in total control I think you can look forward to eye watering defence cuts for the next five years.

[downsizer]

I am willing to take redundancy if that helps! :)

[Melchett01]

I don't think "the Nasty Party" will have anything to do with impending cuts. As High Spirits notes, defence would be in the firing line whichever party won last night. Although I wouldn't be surprised if the US didn't lean on the MoD / PM to temper any further cuts.

And personally, I don't think not spending money you don't have qualifies you as "nasty", just sensible, but I suppose that's the northern working class common sense in me talking. Any one who thinks otherwise needs to wake up to the chaos spending what you don't have causes.

[glad rag]

Glad rag - my (limited) interaction with the Tonka fleet (Lossie division) would not support your main argument. Yes, they may be owned by MoD and first line maintained by the finest RAF techies fuelled on enthusiasm and pies (:p) BUT the big jobs (depth) are all done by contractors so incur direct costs at contract renewal time (pay for x years even if you only keep the frame going for X-2?). To adapt the mighty warbird means major interaction with design authority (added cost) and even that doesn't always deliver the goods (TCAS fit anyone?).
In the complex, 'shave that cost off to contractors - someone else's budget' world of modern govt accounting - nothing matters except hitting your targets and the govt prioritises FINANCIAL targets over real targets.
Still, maybe we are all wrong and SDSR won't be another cost-cutting exercise like the last one was (as even the govt now admits)....

No disrespect intended but
"and first line maintained by the finest RAF techies fuelled on enthusiasm and pies"

Hmm, from what I've seen recently ;) I don't think so.

And yes, Sadly it's all about £

Now, how they disguise that £, well....

rgds to the front line

gr

[glad rag]

I don't think "the Nasty Party" will have anything to do with impending cuts. As High Spirits notes, defence would be in the firing line whichever party won last night. Although I wouldn't be surprised if the US didn't lean on the MoD / PM to temper any further cuts.

And personally, I don't think not spending money you don't have qualifies you as "nasty", just sensible, but I suppose that's the northern working class common sense in me talking. Any one who thinks otherwise needs to wake up to the chaos spending what you don't have causes.

And all of a sudden Vlad is telling Liz how many sugars in his tea. Oh and by the way... :mad:

[Bannock]

BBC reporting that any Bombshells our new Gov want to drop may come PDQ to capitalise on the Opposition parties lack of leadership and complete confusion.

Foreign Sec, Chancellor and Def sec back at desks on Monday.
Brace Brace Brace.


Spending And Review Top Tory Defense Priorities (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/05/08/election-win-for-tories-sees-defense-focus-on-spending-cuts-and-review/26976845/)

[GeeRam]

I see Vlad has just put on quite an impressive 'old style' parade for their 70th anniversary VE day commemorations......

[LowObservable]

As a pilot from the Danish Air Force told me when asked about cuts in Denmark: 'You can't pluck hair from the head of a bald man'.

Sounds like a great idea for the Danes to buy the world's most expensive fighter, then.

[Bigbux]

BBC reporting that any Bombshells our new Gov want to drop may come PDQ to capitalise on the Opposition parties lack of leadership and complete confusion.

Foreign Sec, Chancellor and Def sec back at desks on Monday.
Brace Brace Brace.


Spending And Review Top Tory Defense Priorities (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/05/08/election-win-for-tories-sees-defense-focus-on-spending-cuts-and-review/26976845/)

So absolutely no risk of them suddenly deciding to pay double for the Army's Apache replacement by allowing Westlands to get in on the act, rather than sourcing from Boeing direct then.

[glad rag]

So absolutely no risk of them suddenly deciding to pay double for the Army's Apache replacement by allowing Westlands to get in on the act, rather than sourcing from Boeing direct then.

I have a deep and desperate need to understand WHY the Army actually needs "new" apaches anyway.

[Melchett01]

I think the best we can hope for is an SDSR that is a progress check towards FF2020. Any radical changes would risk undoing all the work already done and nullify previous assumptions.

And I would hope even the most doctrinal of staff officers would argue that would be a huge waste of effort.

[Jayand]

Glad rag, would you care to quantify your sweeping generalisation about Finest RAF techies?
And you could very well argue that Putins display of hardware yesterday at VE day celebrations would be a decent reason for keeping a modern, updated battlefield helicopter. No?

[Guernsey Girl II]

Jaylad,

I don't know where abouts in the real world you are, but the Victory Parade in Red Square started at 07:00z today (9 May). Perhaps you saw pics of one of the many practices (they have enough rehearsals to make GSM London District green with envy). You could see it live on any TV in the UK on Russia Today. I wonder how much that costs good old Vladimir? (TV station I mean, I'm sure the parade was peanuts):ok:

[Selatar]

Melchett,

That would be nice to have a mere tweak of the tiller. I don't think the treasury will permit such activity however. Even without No11 interference difficult decisions needed with flat cash, even with 1% for procurement.

SDSR announcement early in the week is my guess. To report in six months for immediate implementation.

[Bastardeux]

Interesting development?...

Tory backbenchers threaten to block David Cameron's defence cuts ahead of meeting - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11596163/Tory-backbenchers-threaten-to-block-David-Camerons-defence-cuts-ahead-of-meeting.html)

[Wyler]

Whilst we still have horses towing guns I doubt Joe Public, on a zero hours contract, will believe the Military is 'cut to the bone'.

[Sandy Parts]

Jayand - perhaps Glad Rag was referring to my 'pies' comment? I admit, since the days of the NAAFI wagon are long gone and popping to the new 'joint' scoff hall means risking running into all sorts of bosses - maybe the pie intake is reduced? :ok:

[Bannock]

Anna Soubry and Rory Stewart, some of the most vocal and well informed MPs on the Defence Select commitee I see have been moved on.
I am not suggesting anything!
But someone else is

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/05/house-of-commons-defence-select-committee/

[Willard Whyte]

Not unexpected... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11619155/George-Osborne-orders-almost-every-government-department-to-find-cuts.html)

The chancellor disclosed that Greg Hands, the new chief secretary, has written to every government department except health, education and international development ordering them to find cuts.

It comes as the government faces a potential back-bench rebellion unless it commits to spending 2 per cent of Britain's national income on defence.

Make the most of your 1% pay rise chaps & chapesses, can't see many further rises for a while.

[Bannock]

The SOS was at High Wycombe on the 15th and addressed the great unwashed about SDSR.
Did he drop any clues about when he was going to spill the beans ?

[Melchett01]

Make the most of your 1% pay rise chaps & chapesses, can't see many further rises for a while.

At the risk of being a complete doom merchant, Osborne is vehemently against the principle of incremental pay - aren't the armed forces one if the only public sector bodies still to receive it? And how much did UK forces being in Afghanistan back in 2010 play into the decision to exempt us at the time of the last CSR ? And I wonder if the Afghan dividend will see that previous decision reversed - pay freezes and no increments?

It's already been done for pay on promotion under NEM (mark time for 2 years as you grow in to the new rank) so what's to stop it happening for everyone for a couple of years on top of a pay freeze?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I hate to say I told you so, but I did.

Three Weeks Into A New Parliament And Defence Is Already Being Hit With £1 Billion Cuts - Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/29/three-weeks-into-a-new-parliament-and-defence-is-already-being-hit-with-1-billion-cuts/)

[Heathrow Harry]

well they should be able to scrape up a billion - its about the cost of a new set of tyres on the F-35

but its the constant lies I can't stand..... not two weeks since they were sayign how important defence was and now :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

but its the constant lies I can't stand

Well, who did you vote for?

That is the only language they understand, in the same way that the only language big business understands is where you choose to spend your money.

[Hawk98]

Someone please, please tell me why the government decides to protect the aid budget?! Why on earth give a country that has its own independent space programme money!

[Biggus]

Hawk,

While not defending the aid budget, I think the example you are referring to is an urban myth. I'm working from memory here (forgive me for that), but I seem to remember reading on another pprune thread not long ago that none/very little of the UK aid budget goes to India any more.

This being pprune, no doubt someone else will be along shortly with the truth and a link to back it up.....

[Melchett01]

It would appear that the following were the top 20 recipients of UK aid in 2013:

Pakistan, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, India, Nigeria, Afghanistan, DROC, Kenya, Tanzania, Syria, South Sudan, Malawi, Somalia, Ghana, Rwanda, Myanmar,Yemen, Zimbabwe, Nepal and St Helena. They collectively accounted for ~70% of the aid budget

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/370050/table-5.csv/preview

India got £269M and dropped to fourth biggest recipient having been the largest UK aid recipient in 2009 and 2012, years for which figures are given. I'm curious to know where in Europe accounts for the ~1% of the aid budget.

I'm even more curious to know why we gave China £75M in aid in 2009 when its GDP appears to have been close to $5 Trillion whilst the UK's was nearer to $2.3 Trillion

[Lima Juliet]

Melchett

That's a point well made. I for one am not a fan of ODA - sure we should send money for disaster relief, but that should be it. Charities should take this on; if I choose to give some of my hard earned cash to help another country then that's my choice and not the Govt's with our money.

LJ

[Courtney Mil]

Do you choose to give your cash to benefit scroungers, Leon? But it does seem ridiculous to give money to countries with bigger economies than the UK's. It always strikes me as "if I give you some of my pocket money, will you be my friend?"

[typerated]

I didn't used to agree with either of you CM or Leon.

It made sense to me that it had to be a far better way of 'affecting change' than conflicts - anything had to be better value for money than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But having seen the corruption and inability of money to filter down to those we are trying to help I have revised my views.

While I dislike the concept of us and them - whether it be between departments in company, different military services or countries - I think we are wasting our time trying benefit third world countries with aid.

I do think that we would eliminate some of the world's problems by sharing our wealth with the have not - but I think it must be via trade and not aid. Changing corporate trading rules would achieve much more.

[The Old Fat One]

Some of the comments on here regarding the International Development Budget beggar belief.

Leaving aside (reluctantly) the clear moral ambiguity of a country (whose prosperity and wealth has largely been created by colonising the assets of countries across the globe) sidestepping its international responsibilities, does anyone on here seriously think if all of this budget was cancelled tomorrow, one penny of it would go to defence?

The very idea is risible.

I'm all for prioritising defence and security at the expense of other budgets, but how about we cut out the pointless xenophobia.

For me the answer clear - if we want better armed forces (which I for one do) we should simply pay more tax.

Since that's not going to happen in a month of Sunday's, nor is defence going to get any money earmarked for more socially acceptable public services, I guess we just accept we are in the democratic minority.

Being in a minority should not be an excuse for posting specious bilge though should it?

[Melchett01]

I'm all for prioritising defence and security at the expense of other budgets, but how about we cut out the pointless xenophobia.

I'm not aware that there's any xenophobia (or racism) here. The recent posts have not displayed any deep rooted and irrational fear of foreigners, or expressed any notion that one nation or race is superior to another.

What has been expressed is a deep rooted scepticism in the judgement of a particular government policy and the lack of accountability and oversight of how tax payers' money is being spent overseas, when in fact there are plenty of pressing problems at home that could be eased with a fraction of that money was given to the likes of India and China with their own advanced weapons programmes.

So let's park up the outrage bus and ease up on politically charged accusations that will only send what is a logical, legitimate and reasonably well debated thread swiftly to closure. Let's leave them to the NAAFI forum on ARRSE and EGoat.

[Davef68]

The aid budget is sacrosanct because (a) the Uk has signed an agreeent to pay a certain % GDP in overseas aid and (b) Cameron's social-liberalism means he 'won't reduce the deficeit on the backs of the world's poor'

[Courtney Mil]

Actually, Davef, despite any personal views, that is the best explanation I've seen in this forum on the subject of aid. :ok:

[Willard Whyte]

Anyone got a rough idea of the breakdown* of the defence budget, a brief bit of googling isn't revealing much?

* % on wages/equipment/infrastructure etc. I seem to remember equipment being ~1/3 of the overall expenditure.

Anyhoo, a 1% rise in equipment costs allied with an overall cut in expenditure of £1Bn is going to lead to some tough decisions (job cuts/equipment cuts/pay freezes). Hard to see much being saved by mere efficiency savings.

[Melchett01]

Willard, have a look here:

House of Commons - The Ministry of Defence Main Estimates 2014-15 - Defence Committee (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmdfence/469/46904.htm)

[Courtney Mil]

One of the seriously big drains on the defence budget is JSF. It was the same for Typhoon some years ago and there is no plan B so the project will continue to suck up cash.

That and the carriers (and everything else they entail) means an ever shrinking pool from which to make savings, especially if there is even a small pay rise. And I doubt this 1billion will be the last cut this year...

[Melchett01]

Courtney,

I think you're right on the JSF, even with all the questions - on both sides of the Atlantic - about whether it's the right platform. However, just look at what they did to Nimrod - there's always a plan B, it's just that sometimes it's so utterly unpalatable that we refuse to acknowledge it. So just where is the final red line for JSF and the carriers? Is there even a red line as per Nimrod?

Without the JSF the carriers are pointless, but there may come a time when it's actually cheaper and operationally sensible to scrap JSF, buy COTS and sell the carriers and start from scratch. I can imagine the uproar, both politically and militarily, but if the Osborne doctrine, where the cure is as bad as the illness, persists and everything is up for grabs, I can see a world where that is at least considered in MOD as a plan B.

[Lima Juliet]

This is my favourite ODA cartoon:

http://conservativepapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/foreign-aid-1001.jpg

Sums it up for me and why we should stop it.

For Courtney, no I don't agree that my money should go to benefit scroungers, but I do believe on some of my taxes going to people in this country that are in a desperate state and need it (and that includes any race, colour or religion - "xenophobic", my arse!).

LJ :ok:

[Lima Juliet]

Here is a Plan B for QE and PoW...

http://i49.tinypic.com/2jtjl4.jpg

Ski jump one end and PUAG bolted on the other. Cheap as chips...:}

LJ

[Courtney Mil]

Leon,

What a great picture. And a good point.

Benefits for those that need it, absolutely with you there!


Melchett,

You are, of course right, but I really don't believe that this government will pull the plug on either. I can see them reducing numbers. That said, it may depend on how much they can save in cuts; their promise to kill the deficit for a second term could well override other considerations. Dave may not be staying for a third term, but the party will want too. Failing to balance the books a second time would not look good in five years time!

[Melchett01]

I'm fairly sure we're on the same page Courtney, but if they do reduce numbers at what point does the programme become operationally non-viable? Half a dozen airframes on a 60,000T carrier would look rather silly and would be just enough to defend the ship let alone be operationally effective.

One of the other options I can see, given that the USMC are tied into the same programme, is a quiet back room deal for the US to either fund more UK ac or give a us very good deal on the side to ensure the UK but goes ahead as planned just to guarantee their own future capability.

[alfred_the_great]

You better hope F35 continues, else the Tornado's replacement will be an RPAS/UCAV.

[Courtney Mil]

Melchett, I believe we are. As for minimum numbers, I doubt it would go to six. I know that was just an example. The Government is aware of UK industry's significant role in the project and has configured (with a slight stumble) the new carriers according to what is coming. But the maintenance of reasonable numbers would certainly not rule out the sort of quiet deals you suggest.

ATG, I truly do hope it works. The fact that I feel free to debate its shortcomings and question its design doesn't mean I don't want it to succeed. But you do raise an interesting point.

[Willard Whyte]

Cheers Melch'. So yeah, roughly 1/3 on equipment, give or take a bit.

[oldgrubber]

First Lord West now ex Rear Admiral parry.

POWERLESS... that's the pitiful state of our Armed Forces, warns a top admiral, as savage defence cuts leave Britain dangerously vulnerable | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3104178/POWERLESS-s-pitiful-state-Armed-Forces-warns-admiral-savage-defence-cuts-leave-Britain-dangerously-vulnerable.html)

I know it's the Daily Fail but they don't appear to have meddled with the extract.

[t43562]

I remember seeing some sort of "budget balancing calculator" linked to by a Financial Times article where you could try out your own ideas about how to reduce the deficit. I remember a number of the comments saying "I put defence to zero....but...".

So it's obvious to me that some portion of people don't understand what they're getting from defence. I would guess that everyone sees their own point of view very clearly and not others. So it's at least possible that some of us don't see what we get from spending money on aid because we don't know anything about it.

[Mach Two]

It's OK, I'm looking forward to my next pay cut.

[Guest_22]

Break up the RAF and stop buying British - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11642595/Break-up-the-RAF-and-stop-buying-British.html)

Keep Lewis Page away from the decision making. It's a shame he's not aware that the C-17 and C-130 production lines have a finite lifespan with all remaining aircraft to be produced are accounted for.

However I do agree that we need to break the BAES monopoly.

[Roland Pulfrew]

we should send our new carriers overseas to have catapults fitted. We should lease a fleet of F-18s.
This quote alone is why no-one should ever listen to anything that this naive ex-lt cdr has to say on Defence procurement!!! How much would that cost at this stage of the programme??

[Hawk98]

Hmm, if I've ever heard of wasting money, it would be 'scrapping' (Typhoon is made from a lot of composites anyway so there'd be little scrap value) the Typhoon fleet, that would be utterly stupendous in my opinion and a waste of money greater than that wasted on MRA4. Sure, BAE needs a kick up the arse, but personally I don't agree with him on much else.

Tom

[engineer(retard)]

That article reads as though it has been written by a 12 year old child with behavioural problems.

[Roland Pulfrew]

For me the answer clear - if we want better armed forces (which I for one do) we should simply pay more tax.

And let's not kid ourselves that any tax rise would be spent on Defence either. Any increase in tax would be swallowed up by the Sacred Cow/Black Hole that the NHS has become.

[Courtney Mil]

Sounds like Page has been spending too much time with that other idiot Ward.

[ShotOne]

The OP's original contention was more about methodology than the specifics of what we should procure. Briefly,that we base our initial decision making on what is needed to deal with the threat rather than on what we can afford. I see two major pitfalls to this approach; the "threat" could mean all sorts of things depending on who you ask (anyone feel like tackling the North Korean nuclear programme?) and secondly, whether you're a schoolboy buying an airfix jet-fighter, or a govt buying a real one, is any real-world spending decision taken this way?

[CoffmanStarter]

It would seem that Mr Page 'benefited' from a RAF University Air Squadron (Cambridge ?) place 1988/1991 ... :mad:


http://lewispage.bl0gsp0t.co.uk

Just edit 0's for o's if you wish to read more ... I wonder how long it will be before he appears on The Phoenix Think Tank authors list ?

[engineer(retard)]

I see two major pitfalls to this approach; the "threat" could mean all sorts of things depending on who you ask

The North according to Angus Ronbertson, possibly Icelnad, Greenland or Canada ;)

[MSOCS]

There is no place to "start" with this abortion of an article.

What a naive fellow. He seems to have learned nothing about how Defence or Capital Programs (requirements, contracts etc) work during his service. His research is equally flawed and one-sided in order to deliver his coup-de-grace at the end.

His chants about BAEs are recycled opinion which a lot of people (including myself) agree with but the rest is fantasy.

[Bob Viking]

What disappoints me most is that the Telegraph, supposedly an intellectual broadsheet, would pay such a moron to write for them. Aside from his opinions and ideas, which are mostly complete tosh, his standard of writing is no better than a GCSE student. It's almost like he wrote it for the readership of the Sun and sent it to the wrong editor.

Having said all of that how do I get a job like his? We all like to think we know everything and given half an hour in a crew room we could all solve the problems in the MOD over a coffee and a Bourbon biscuit. The reality is though, that it is far more complex than us mere minions appreciate. Lewis Page was and still is a minion whose opinions are frankly worthless. I could give my opinions on his article but it would be no more accurate than his. I just wish I could persuade an idiotic editor that I was credible and I could make some money out of it.

BV

[Biggus]

Mr Page is a simpleton of the first order, making his arguments within a stovepipe of his RN experience, rather than looking at any possible wider ramifications.

I fully admit that I haven't spent much time in research, but he really isn't worth it, but a quick search produced the following information:

UK defence industry: in numbers - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/8244152/UK-defence-industry-in-numbers.html)

Ok, so it's dated 2011, but nevertheless, it says, amongst other things, that:#

£35bn - Annual turnover of UK defence industry
£7.2bn - Value of UK defence exports in 2009.
300,000 - Number of people employed by the defence industry overall in the UK.
10pc - Proportion of UK manufacturing made up by defence
40,000 - Number of employees BAE Systems has in the UK

So, Mr Page devastates the UK defence industry by buying foreign. This results in a major loss of our most high tech manufacturing industry. Result, according to him it's that our defence budget is spent more efficiently on cheaper (although he also says JSF is "cripplingly expensive - make your mind up!!) off the shelf foreign items - yes? MAYBE. But what about the effect on the UK governments finances? What makes him think the defence budget will remain unaltered in such a situation. How much corporation tax is lost on that £35Bn turnover? How many jobs are lost in the defence industry (and don't tell me they can just go out and get new jobs). What is the cost to the government of losing a tax payer, on probably above average wages, who becomes a benefit recipient and therefore a tax burden? Say a switch from + to - of £20,000+. Multiply that by what, 100,000?

So how many £Bn of income does the government actually lose in this situation? Answers on a postcard please Mr Page.



BAES shouldn't have a right to MOD orders, but like most things in the grown up world (yes I'm talking to you Mr Page), things aren't as simple as they may at first appear!!



As for his comment about tanks, maybe somebody should tell him that the Germans have just got some of their old ones out of mothballs - thanks to that nice Mr Putin!!

[Courtney Mil]

BV,

I guess because he sold himself well. And papers, including the Telegraph, may not realise that his bio shows his somewhat sheltered 11 year RN career as being focussed on ship ops, diving, mine clearance and IED disposal. Nothing much relating to the other two services, on which he writes as it he were an expert, and nothing that would have given him any experience of defence procurement, on which he writes as if he were an expert.

As for his credentials to comment on aircraft, air ops or the RAF, well, he did spend some time at a UAS. Can't find any Army connections there.

The Phoenix Rant Tank are bound to snap him up!

[Haraka]

Reading the responses to this guy's diatribe, I detect a certain "windiness" in certain reactions.
Perhaps it might be a better idea to address( and/or dismiss) the message, rather than concentrating on castigating and denigrating the messenger ?

[alfred_the_great]

Surely we should set up an independent commission to investigate his complaints (cf Nuclear Death Trap thread)...

[Courtney Mil]

ATG :=:ok:

Haraka, I think the point is that the article is so contemptible, badly conceived and factually flawed that its message really doesn't need addressing. Instead it points to an author that either is dreadfully bitter, terribly badly informed of simply not very smart. Because there is such a lack of credibility in his writing, one has to wonder what his motivation is for writing that. That is bound to attract a degree of speculation about the author.

[mopardave]

Gents.......it goes without saying that I bow to your greater knowledge.....and no, I'm not being sarcastic. I have a question though.........if we have the fifth largest defence budget, why are the forces in such a state? I know I'm oversimplifying things, but why don't we have the fifth (or thereabouts) largest armed forces?
It strikes me that BAe have had it pretty good......how much was thrown at Nimrod in its various guises? The Clansman radio system......wasn't that another debacle?
I want our forces to have the best........but dear god......no one is accountable for anything? Does anything ever come in (reasonably) on time or (give or take, reasonably) on budget?
I'm standing by for some incoming, but I'm just asking?
MD:ok:

[Bob Viking]

Good kit doesn't come cheap. I realise that the old quote of:

"Quantity has a quality all of it's own"

is relevant here but just because we don't have hundreds of jets/ships/tanks doesn't mean we're in a terrible state. If we came up with a policy that said we wanted lots of cheap kit we could probably have it. For most conflicts that'd probably work just fine. But if the sh1t really hit the fan we'd be screwed.

I know we all yearn for the past. God knows if the Jaguar were still in service I'd jump at the chance to go back. However as the world advances we have to keep up.

We all love to hate the F35B, for example, but have any of you actually spoken to the guys flying it? It may not look as good at an airshow as other jets but then that's hardly it's primary role.

Let's not forget also that a large part of the defence budget gets eaten up by us. The people. Pay and pensions make up an enormous part of the pot of cash.

We may have cut the forces considerably since the end of the cold war but most of the people who left are still alive and still getting a pension. Maybe if we devoted a special task force to bumping some of them off we could free up some spare dosh.

BV:E

PS. If you can't sense the tongue in cheek tone of my last paragraph I can only apologise.

[Bob Viking]

I should also add that I fully agree that we get ripped off by industry but look at it like motorway service stations. If you want to eat you are a captive audience. The same applies to defence procurement.

I wish it weren't the case but such is life.

BV:(

[mopardave]

BV


"motorway service stations".......that is actually a great analogy......I get what you're saying.


As for the pensioner hit squad idea.......now you're making me feel nervous bruv!


MD:ok:

[mopardave]

I was talking to a junior officer from the awacs community on Friday night.......a thoroughly nice guy who told me that from where he was stood, life in the RAF was pretty good right now! I know not everyone would agree with him, but it was nice to hear an alternative view.

[Courtney Mil]

MD, I would think that a lot of us are asking the same question. Hopefully a few here will give you some good answers. I'll stick my head over the thingy and offer this.

The UK armed forces are still bloody good, but suffered repeated cuts since the end of the Cold War - actually since the end of WWII, but if you go back there we'll never get an answer. There has been a continuous disconnect between certain politicians (many of whom have little understanding of how the Armed Forces wok) and various parts of the MoD. At times, the disparate need to save money for other departments' use has led to delaying spending on projects, which does three things: it saves money this year, it delays the programme, it makes the programme more expensive.

As Defence spending has shrunk, so have the Defence industries. Therefore companies merge until the UK ends up with one main contractor that does everything. A virtual monopoly supported by the faith that the Government will always want to support the national economy and, therefore, always buy British or, at least, buy from a consortium or project that includes the remaining UK Defence industry. Therefore, the remaining main contractor holds all the trump cards.

UK Government is not willing to, or feels unable to, commit to a major programme alone in the belief that sharing risk, development costs and production costs will save them money. They overlook the consequences of multinational disagreement or failures by other nations contractors and the effects that these factors will have on the project's timeline and its costs.

The customer spends a lot of time deciding what its requirement may be. Then new people take over the job at MoD and decide that they didn't get it right and make changes. Industry tries to adapt the design to accommodate the changes, but this takes time, costs money and leads to other complications in the design, some of which will resurface later as issues later in the programme.

The next Government decides to make make defence cuts. So, priorities in existing programmes have to change. Changes to a programme leads to delays and cost. Something gets cancelled and another programme has to try to pick up the slack.

The country gets involved in an overseas conflict. Existing equipment doesn't conform to the operation. Let's say they don't have a certain piece of equipment that another, bigger country requires the UK's aircraft to have in order to join in the fight. The MoD has to drop everything, find emergency funding and a way to buy and incorporate the required equipment in their aircraft. Well, some of them. After the conflict is over, the MoD has a number of aircraft at a different standard to the rest. Now what? You know the kit is needed in the whole fleet, but where does the money come from?

And on and on and on. Everyone wants a world-beating Air Force. No one wants to fund it properly. Kit gets more and more expensive. Kit wears out and must be replaced. Politicians believe that saying they love the Forces will make it OK. No will to spend money in peacetime, a desperate wish to deploy forces when it gives the polis a place on the world stage.

Some countries have the guts to go ahead and do it alone. Well almost. The U.S. do it, but have recently been bitten by costs and delays in some recent programmes. But they keep doing it and they are very big. France does it because they're like that. Sweden do it. So maybe it's something to do with government determination.

In short, mopardavd, I have no idea.

[mopardave]

CM.......I asked a question about a complex subject......and I got a succinct and reasoned answer. Thanks for that. What you say makes perfect sense........but it still leaves a nasty taste in the throat, right? In short, the only "losers" in this game are the men and women on the "front line" doing the bidding of those with their hands on the leavers of power (and dare I say, their snouts in the trough!).
I do have some experience of this.....in my previous emergency services life, I got into conversation with a provider of IT systems. He told me it was virtually impossible dealing with my particular organisation due to the constant changes in senior personnel (with differing agenda's, and mysterious and constantly shifting goal posts!). In fact......they just gave up on us! Makes ya weep!
MD:ugh:

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

the leavers of power


The leavers do indeed have the power...:{

[Finningley Boy]

Going back to LP's comments about F-18s and such like, it doesn't appear to have occurred to him that Naval Aviation is to support the Fleet on its expeditionary operations, not to defend UK or European airspace. Nor that long range maritime air operations and reconnaissance etc operate (when we have them) in defence of UK waters and the approaches to them. Personally I think think the Navy should be broken up along with the Army and their respective core role subsumed into a resurgent RAF Marine Craft service and the RAF Regiment!:E
There, sorted!:ok:

FB:ok:

[mopardave]

I meant to say "levers"......ooops!!:ugh:

[India Four Two]

mopardave,

Are you sure that "leavers" wasn't a Freudian slip? ;)

[Lima Juliet]

So it is £500M of savings then. Some of the dumbass moves by DiO shelved and that should sort it! :ok:

LJ

[CoffmanStarter]

Here's a bright idea ... How about now logging Mil flying time from 'Top of Climb' to 'Start of Descent' ... That'll produce some savings :E

1973 Oil Crisis anyone :hmm:

[mopardave]

mopardave,

Are you sure that "leavers" wasn't a Freudian slip?

India Four Two, I wish I could claim that........nope, I was just being cretin!

MD:ok:

[Sun Who]

I started this thread by saying:


Personally, I'd like to see SDSR15 be a properly strategic review, that looks at the threat before the cost - and then adjusts to ensure affordability (rather than the other way around) If this (http://news.sky.com/story/1496457/defence-cuts-show-no-good-news-on-horizon) article is to be believed, it looks like I'm going to be disappointed.

Sun.

[MaroonMan4]

Sun,

I wish I could add something of value to this thread, and if I/we all thought that the next SDSR would be presented after deep thought, academic rigour and a strategically robust evolution conducted over sensible timelines, then maybe we would all chip in and give our two pennies worth. But really we all know it is just another cost cutting exercise, and we haven't even finished trying to implement the huge change from the last SDSR yet.

I think you are finding user apathy, lethargy and fatigue as yet more change is coming and yet more cuts, so why bother trying to discuss reasoned logical solutions or recommendations? It appears that those with their hands on the purse strings, political and MoD have already made up their minds and are doing some rapid work in compressed timelines to justify these decisions.

The majority on here are either using their online time to plan their exit strategy from a shrinking Defence or are stuck in a CEA or Pension rut and are just doing their best to keep their heads above water as more is asked from less, as all the good bright people around them depart, leaving empty desks and younger/less experienced cockpits/support staff.

Sadly nothing strategic about how to make in year real term cost savings.

[skydiver69]

Maroonman4I wish I could add something of value to this thread, and if I/we all thought that the next SDSR would be presented after deep thought, academic rigour and a strategically robust evolution conducted over sensible timelines, then maybe we would all chip in and give our two pennies worth. But really we all know it is just another cost cutting exercise, and we haven't even finished trying to implement the huge change from the last SDSR yet.

That sort of attitude is also displayed in the Government's attitude to the police where reforms have been brought in based on rehashed research by one man and is more about political dogma than academic rigour. If that can be said of the armed forces and police does the same apply to Tory changes to the NHS or education?

[papajuliet]

It applies to everything done by politicians. They, sometimes, "consult" people who do know the subject but, if the response is not what the politician wants, they ignore it. They can, of course, truthfully say that there have been consultations with interested parties.

[teeteringhead]

As I have often said before, the correct SDSR process is - in theory -simple. It goes thusly:

1. Chancellor: O CDS, how much cash do you want?

2. CDS: O Minister, what do you want us to do?

3. Minister: We want you to do, A, B C, D ........... Z

4. CDS: That will cost you £X squillion.

5. Chancellor: You can't have that much, you can only have £Y squillion.

6. CDS: O Minister, what less do you want us to do.

7. Minister: We might settle for A, B, C, D ............ Q

8. CDS: That'll cost you £X-Z squillion.

9. Chancellor: Still too much. £X-Z squillion > £Y squillion.

10. LOOP Serial 6 - Serial 9 until £X-Z squillion = £Y squillion.

Will it ever happen like that??? What do you think! :ugh:

[Courtney Mil]

1. Chancellor: O CDS, how much cash do you want?

2. CDS: O Minister, what do you want us to do?

3. Minister: We want you to do everything.

4. CDS: That will cost you £X squillion.

5. Chancellor: You can't have that much, you can only have £Y squillion.

6. CDS: O Minister, what less do you want us to do.

7. Minister: Nothing, we want you to do all of it.

8. CDS: That'll cost you £X squillion.

9. Chancellor: I told you, you can only have £Y squillion.

10. LOOP Serial 6 - Serial 9 until Minister and/or CDS gets fed up.

11. CDS: OK.

12. Chancellor: oh, by the way, we'll also need you make another W squillions of in year savings and I'll get back to you about the cuts, er, SDSR later in the year.

[Thelma Viaduct]

The tories have managed to double the national debt in 5 years, then they get a 10% pay increase as a reward.

Austerity.........my arse.

[Courtney Mil]

Really, Pious, an unworthy comment. You do get the difference between deficit and debt, don't you? You guys complain that the previous Government cut too hard to reduce the deficit and then complain that the debt increased. Do you really think any government could have zerod-out a deficit of that size in five years?

[Finningley Boy]

I was watching Norman Lamb, Lib Dem MP, on Question Time last night. In response to a question about further Defence cuts, he trotted out the old mantra about Defence and Security of us all, in so many words, as being his first and foremost consideration as you'll here any Politician, put on the spot, say. He then went on to point out the 'however' that Defence can not be treated any differently to any other Government Department!


I'll say something the four female guests on the panel had a far greater and realistic grasp of the issue of national defence than he did.

After all the recent ring fencing I still struggle to understand
FB

[glad rag]

QT was quite illuminating for a number of reasons..

1. it reinforced the view that our current breed of MP are entirely self serving, bar the occasional lone exception.
2. the foreign aid budget IS fair and is of enormous benefit to those countries with fledgling space and nuclear weapons programs.
3. the EU is magnificent and has kept Europe at peace for a very long time allowing us to trot around the globe asserting democracy at the point of a laser.

And the final irony, lost on quite a few, was the skilled immigrant from Romania telling us we should let more of his mates in!! Why can't WE train and retain enough doctors then http://www.pistonheads.com/inc/images/scratchchin.gif

[Melchett01]

I don't think it's a coincidence that that particular line of questioning on QT was followed up by this article in the DT today, fleshing out some of the numbers I posted in an earlier post:

British aid billions 'subsidising' third world defence budgets - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11654852/British-aid-billions-subsidising-third-world-defence-budgets.html)

As for the irony of the Romanian doctor, I think that was lost on many. There was much of the UKIP manifesto that I didn't agree with, for practical as well as doctrinal reasons, but they were spot on about more effectively managing immigration so we can more effectively choose who comes to join our club. That to my mind is just common sense given our small and limited geographical size which is probably why it would never fly in political circles.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Why can't WE train and retain enough doctors then"

because the consultants already in place throttle the supply so they keep their fees up tbh

and most immigrants are doing work that you can't get a true Brit to even think of doing - ask any farmer, or restaurant owner ................ or anyone wanting nursing assistants at midnight on a Saturday

[Rotate too late]

Interestingly, since my flying pay was cut, my wife has been working as a nursing assistant at a local care home to make up the difference, she's the only Brit there. To be fair, they all work 12 hour shifts for 5p above minimum wage. And are excellent workers, no Brit will go near it. But to be honest, you are sacrificing a lot of pride to work for that sort of money. :(

[Heathrow Harry]

Yeah - our local A&E is pretty much doctors from the Sub-Continent and nurses and assistants from Phillipines & W Africa after 17:00 on Friday

and the cleaners & Catering staff are all Somalis and Romanians as faras I can see

[Chinny Crewman]

Having recently left the RAF I would suggest that the savings could be made by cutting out some of the inefficiencies. In fact cutting out just half of the waste would cover the savings required and pay for a Sqn of P8s.

[t43562]

A lot of these arguments sound like those I used to read in the Herald every morning (the main Zimbabwean daily).

Take the "why can't we train" one for example: training takes time so the milk is already spilled and all the moaning and all the kings horses can't make a doctor for tomorrow morning. While you fiddle around with the knobs and valves and keep trying to get something without paying the requisite amount of tax, new doctors have to be obtained right away.

The same sort of thing goes for all the other jobs - while you argue about the reasons and solutions, while you try X and it doesn't work and then try Y, today's business needs to get done. If it can't get done now, then by the time you finally get your act together, that industry may no longer exist on your shores.

[Bannock]

The SDSR will be at "The end of the year" declared SOS in Parliament this morning.
The SNP went on the their usual rant about No Nukes in Scotland
and followed it with an Interesting discussion on MPA, waxing lyrically about "returning the capability to its historical and geographical homeland"


St Mawgan it is then ! Screw you SNP

[Courtney Mil]

some of the inefficiencies

Which ones, exactly?

[Wander00]

Bannock - that's a cracker - up the SNP - right up them!

[Courtney Mil]

No matter what they say, just the risk of another independence vote means that the MoD would be bloody mad to establish anything new north of the border. The potential relocation costs would eat the ever-shrinking budget. I think SNP may be hoisted by their own whatits.

[Rotate too late]

But Nicola Sturgeon...would you? Just asking like.

[Courtney Mil]

What??? Start taking your meds again, fella.

[kintyred]

She looks like Herman Munster!

[Not_a_boffin]

Close, but perhaps.....

http://www.comicbrits.co.uk/Films/Carry_On_Screaming/b-Carry_On_Screaming2.jpg

[Teamchief]

She reminds me of wee Jimmy Crankie!

[Bannock]

Face like a Bulldog licking p$ss off a thistle!

[Courtney Mil]

Anyway, if you guys could wipe the dribble from your chins and get Ms Stugeon out of your fantasies for a moment. I would think that Waddington may well be the place, for reasons mentioned earlier.

As long as Sturgeonland threatens to leave the UK, no one in their right mind would create another base for a new platform, with all its support, north of the border. Has anyone told Ms S about the nuclear depth charges yet?

[downsizer]

Two points from this CS.

1. I would. C'mon, most of us have done worse right?
2. I'd bet the farm on Waddo. If this happens obvs....

[camelspyyder]

Anyway, if you guys could wipe the dribble from your chins and get Ms Stugeon out of your fantasies for a moment. I would think that Waddington may well be the place, for reasons mentioned earlier.

As long as Sturgeonland threatens to leave the UK, no one in their right mind would create another base for a new platform, with all its support, north of the border. Has anyone told Ms S about the nuclear depth charges yet?

CM - newsflash. the NDB were withdrawn in 1991/2 :)

[Courtney Mil]

I know. But wouldn't it be fun if Ms S suddenly thought P-8 came with 4 complementary NDBs? Just me being naughty. :cool:

[Party Animal]

downsizer,


I would. C'mon, most of us have done worse right?



Clearly, you have given away your branch as a flight engineer! ;)

[Finningley Boy]

As long as Sturgeonland threatens to leave the UK, no one in their right mind would create another base for a new platform, with all its support, north of the border. Has anyone told Ms S about the nuclear depth charges yet?

You may have hit the nail on the head there Courtney, everything the SNP says has nothing to do with objective concern and all to do with trying to feed paranoiah north of border about Anglo-Saxon indifference toward the Nordic Kelts. Defence was one of the weakest areas in there referendum campaign, no one even got round explaining where flying training would be situate? would they buy Hawks for the transition to flying the 12 Typhoons they were pretty sure they procure? What about early warning? the cost of restructuring the entire defence apparatus would take years and a lot of funds out of the supposed bounty for all the enhanced expenditure on other public services. What baffles me as a fellow Scot, is just how come as many as 45% of those voting in the referendum said Aye!:}

FB:ok:

[Bastardeux]

So...what are we going to spend all this extra cash on?

I've seen various estimates, but the ball park figure is that it gives us an extra £7.5 billion a year on top of previous planning assumptions by 2020!

Even if it doesn't reach quite that high, I'm sure everyone will be as relieved as I am that the relentless freefall of defence as a government priority seems to have now been arrested.

[jindabyne]

Good Budget

[Party Animal]

But will the defence budget have to pay the £100 Bn costs in full for the new Vanguard & Trident replacement?

[Bastardeux]

Trident was already factored into it, so it doesn't make any difference.

[PeterGee]

Goes to show that if you say something enough times it becomes true! As I understand it, £100 million is an SNP number. It is their version of the through life cost to design, build, operate and dispose. Even if true, that means it is not incremental as we already pay to operate

[andyy]

PA, I didn't think Trident was being replaced? I thought it was the"just" the submarines at the end of their hull lives?

[DCThumb]

Amazingly close to the NHS budget for ONE YEAR!!!!!!!!!

[Party Animal]

Honestly not sure what the future CASD package will look like or how much it will cost. Previous CAS though is quoted in todays papers that he is concerned that Defence will still have to make serious cuts to pay for it, despite the 2% guaranteed expenditure over the next 5 years.

[Frostchamber]

Even if it doesn't reach quite that high, I'm sure everyone will be as relieved as I am that the relentless freefall of defence as a government priority seems to have now been arrested.

Agreed. There's a risk of some creative accounting and smoke and mirrors, but even so the defence budget is in a much better place today than it was (or was predicted to be) a few days ago, and that deserves to be acknowledged as a rare piece of good news amid the traditional PPRuNe gloom.

[BATCO]

Amid celebrations following the '2% of GDP announcement', and in full anticipation of the banter (about quality, battles won/lost etc) let us just remind ourselves of some of the 'bang' our near neighbours already get for their 'buck' (euro):
- an aircraft carrier and associated air wing
- air delivered nuke alternative to SSBN
- MPA
- BMD/MSAM (sea and land based)
- JPR/CSAR (and certified capable by US)
- own recce satellite capability (MUSIS)
- 225 fast jets (including the naval Rafales)
- 140 recce/attack helo (in ALAT)
- 115 SH (in ALAT more in air force)

and is working on and, if the Rafale programme is an indicator, will develop Neuron into an operational LO UCAS with or without partners.

Batco

[Tinman74]

But what is more telling is the state and age of their SH and FJ fleet.

[Frostchamber]

In terms of headline figures, the UK certainly "appears" to get less bang for it's buck compared with some other countries. I suspect there is a combination of several factors in play, although I'd struggle to say exactly what proportion of where we are is attributable to each, eg:

Expensive kit eg nuclear submarines
Being charged top dollar by a near-monopoly "UK" supplier
Investing in building and supporting a genuine capability as opposed to trophy assets that arent supported by the less glamorous investment needed to produce genuine capability
Inefficiency / poor financial control
The costs of maintaing the strategic UK manufacturing base instead of outsourcing

[Heathrow Harry]

our near neighbours also design their kit from the outset for export

we design for best technical solution................. which is expensive and doesn't attract foreign buyers

[Biggus]

Amongst other things this article states that a defence review is not due to "conclude" until "the end of the year".

Defence review: 'Spend more' on SAS and drones - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33500006)

[ORAC]

So, when they mention "spy planes" do they mean more life for Sentinel and Shadow, or they confusing/conflating the term to include a new maritime aircraft (P8?), or perhaps more RC-135s?

For drones do they mean more Reapers or, for maritime if they buy P8, do they mean MQ-4 Triton?

And for drones off the QE, do they mean the ScanEagle and 700 NAS, or are their larger UAV which can be recovered to a deck in all conditions?

[Heathrow Harry]

ye Gods ORAC - what a question.........

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6 (http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/books/2chpt6.html))"

Or the UKMOD.......

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Expensive kit eg nuclear submarines
Being charged top dollar by a near-monopoly "UK" supplier
Investing in building and supporting a genuine capability as opposed to trophy assets that arent supported by the less glamorous investment needed to produce genuine capability
Inefficiency / poor financial control
The costs of maintaing the strategic UK manufacturing base instead of outsourcing


And maintaining several large overseas bases year after year

[Willard Whyte]

PA, I didn't think Trident was being replaced? I thought it was the"just" the submarines at the end of their hull lives?

One imagines that it will be a similar arrangement to that at present, with missiles being taken from a pool common with the USN. UGM-133 is undergoing a life extension programme (D5LEP) to take it up to ~2042. Whatever replaces it is certain to fit the same launch tubes, given that the Ohio Class boats are due to be replaced from around 2031 onwards.

[tucumseh]

I may be too cynical in old age but after years of avoiding the "2%" issue, I find it just a tad suspicious that the Government is this week suddenly all for it.

As frostchamber says, I wouldn't be surprised if some creative accounting has taken place and in a few months we're told that achieving 2% entails a cut.

I remain of the opinion MoD should first try not to waste money. Then see what it actually needs. Such matters used to be very carefully hidden, but 99% of people on pprune could easily identify £5Bn poured down the drain in the last few years with little to show for it. Why are politicians willfully blind to this policy of waste? And make no mistake, it IS policy, because MoD commits huge sums to defending those who implement it.


As for the "spend more on SAS", I seem to recall a very embarrassing day when a certain unit submitted a future requirement to certain IPT, only to be told they could have their upgrade that very day as a TA unit was being upgraded and had some old kit lying around. You simply wouldn't believe how common it is to receive an all singing and dancing requirement for kit that other parts of MoD regard as obsolescent. Requirements capture and articulation has been a joke for over 25 years.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I wouldn't be surprised if some creative accounting has taken place and in a few months we're told that achieving 2% entails a cut.

Indeed

Prime Minister David Cameron has indicated the budgets for security services MI5, MI6 and GCHQ could be merged with military defense spending to ensure Britain continues to meet a key NATO spending target.

http://rt.com/uk/239621-intelligence-defence-budget-nato/


If you are wondering where the cuts will come, my money is on reservists. This will be done because

1) The Government doesn't have to sack any, it just has to not recruit them

2) Not gaining reservists sounds a lot better than sacking regulars*

3) Those reservists aren't going to get hired anyway; no-one wants the job, and when the Army were forced to come up with a forecast recruiting schedule for 2020, they shifted the bulk of the recruiting to start after 2015 to try to hid the fact that the recruitment drive was, and remains, an abject failure.

*Except that the regulars have already been sacked.

[Melchett01]

Defence review: Spend more on SAS and drones - Cameron


Well that's the SDSR sorted, what do the various SDSR teams do now? At least this time the SDSR will be based on yesterday's war rather than deficit reduction like the last Review. Still nothing like situating the appreciation.

Edited to add F3WMB said
Quote:
Prime Minister David Cameron has indicated the budgets for security services MI5, MI6 and GCHQ could be merged with military defense spending to ensure Britain continues to meet a key NATO spending target.
http://rt.com/uk/239621-intelligence-defence-budget-nato/

Michael Fallon alluded as much on this morning's Today programme, suggesting / hinting that elements of the new Joint Security Fund might well go towards the Defence budget where it was thought that SIA activities contributed to Defence objectives. It almost caught Sarah Montague on the hop as if she had to to do a double take having rumbled the SoS.

[Whenurhappy]

And maintaining several large overseas bases year after year

Which ones do you mean - and what do you mean by that?

[Bastardeux]

I wouldn't be surprised if some creative accounting has taken place and in a few months we're told that achieving 2% entails a cut.

I knew the cynics of Pprune were lurking somewhere to turn good news into bad news, I'm just surprised this wasn't said sooner.

I read in the news that Michael Fallon appeared to suggest that (elements, as it has never been suggested that the entirety of) the intelligence services budget would not be included in the 2%. Even if it was, the long term trend of growth means the MoD's budget is guaranteed to grow so long as the economy grows, and unless they're planning a monumental expansion of the intelligence community, the vast majority of that money is going to go to the MoD.

[Frostchamber]

I did reference the need to watch out for creative accounting - there will be some - but I'm not in the PPRuNe Eeyore camp on this - I think the 2% commitment is a welcome and positive step. We're now looking at a ringfenced defence budget that will grow in real terms for at least the next 5 years - rather than facing the swingeing cuts that many were predicting. That's not to say everything is rosy but we're in a significantly better place now than we were a week ago.

[tucumseh]

I don't think what I said is all THAT cynical.

(From my perspective) MoD continues to suffer from past policies of ridding itself of specialist corporate knowledge, and continues to pay ever increasing and astronomical sums on "consultants". As this is an aviation forum, how many technical staffs satisfy the minima for "Suitably Qualified and Experienced" set out 15 years ago? MoD wouldn't reply when asked by an MP, but the figure is commonly held to be about zero.

These are important issues as they lie at the heart of why MoD wastes so much. The Government likes to talk in terms of a £38Bn (or whatever) defence budget, but most here know less than a quarter of that is spent on equipment (which is what most naturally like to discuss). Viewed that way, why is apparently so acceptable to piss over 50% of a years budget away on one project when it was known from Day 1 what would happen? Instead of just dismissing it as "sunk costs" and rewarding those responsible, why not study what went wrong and try to avoid it happening again. It wasn't anything to do with complexity. It was to do with very basic, simple engineering issues and MoD not having anyone in authority who had served at a low enough grade to understand them. The "top down" approach is sod all use if the investigation stops at 2 Star as he's allowed to judge his own case.

No apologies. I know many don't agree with my view that we shouldn't waste money. MoD have formally stated this to Ministers and my MP, so I know how difficult it is to challenge this policy. But if you blindly increase the budget and keep it in the hands of those who tolerate waste, that waste will just increase. As I said some years ago when Gordon Brown described MoD as the "citadel of waste"; the Treasury should dig its heels in and say, no more, until you show a commitment to avoiding conscious waste. Same applies to most Departments of State. You may find someone like-minded in the Treasury, but you won't find anyone in MoD prepared to openly propose such a thing.

[Martin the Martian]

Which ones do you mean - and what do you mean by that?

That was referring to the French, who have overseas bases all over the shop:

Scramble (http://www.scramble.nl/orbats/france/overview)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Armed forces job cuts reach target three years early - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33638492)

..as I said a fortnight ago.

The Army Reserves plan has been rated 'Unachievable' by the Government's own Major Projects Authority

[Biggus]

The graphic in that BBC article shows the RAF regular numbers increasing from 31,630 in 2015 to 35,000 in 2020, an increase of 3,400 odd. That's a 10% increase.

What's that all about, and what are the extra personnel for?



Of course, those figures are all pre the next SDSR!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Which ones do you mean - and what do you mean by that?


Actually Martin I meant us! Your link is a few years out of date - still mentions Super Frelons etc. The Falklands and Cyprus are our obvious ones, but one could also include the enduring presence in Canada, the US, Kenya, Brunei.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Biggus - the RAF is currently 2,110 understrength, which is most of that 3,400.

[Biggus]

Fox3,

Thanks for that - so you mean that yet another "drawdown" in numbers overshot the target leading to an understrength force!!

I was once in a briefing about planned redundancy (the 3 rounds version in the 2000s) when a visiting Wg Cdr from Manning was specifically asked what plans they had to avoid overshooting their target as had always occurred historically. He said they were aware of this and taken measures to avoid it - and what happened.... you guessed it!!





Still, an SDSR usually comes along to get Manning out of their hole!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Being a total cynic, one might almost suspect that the intention was to reduce the numbers early. But what possible benefit could a VSO gain by making extra savings for his Boss and the Defence Minister? I mean, GCB only gets you a flag and a pew in the "orbis miraculum" that is the Henry VII Chapel at Westminster Abbey, and your long-suffering Mrs elevated to Lady :E

..and further, one might also be tempted into thinking that SDSR reductions were solely to make the required manning figures match the few people who were left, rather than carefully considered figures to efficiently defend the Realm.

..and I do have a relly who used to have a scrambled egg hat in Manning, so I have some small ability to sort the bullsh!t from the reality.

[Selatar]

The indications that the RAF was declining in manpower at a rate of knots is not new. Check out they 'wakey wakey manning' thread on pprune.

I was firmly put in my box that all was well and manning had a plan.... Hmm, I presume that plan was to get to 31 500 ASAP and keep reducing past it!:D

Recruitment is up but it does not yet match outflow so Halton and Cranwell need to up their game by some margin still. I'm hoping that is what will happen given the amount being spent on recruitment advertisement at the moment.

The BBC graphic is b@llo@ks regarding RAF and RN current 2020 figures. RAF is planned to be 31 500 in 2020. Give that the published stats are almost two months old at 31 630 it's safe to say the light blue have reached the 2020 target of binning 9 000 posts to get to 31 500 five years early. Now that's a lot of cash for CAS to spend in the new disaggregated MOD model, that's if he's allowed to keep it..

Army are even more screwed...

[MSOCS]

Seletar,

With respect, 9000 people have been "binned", not the posts! Many/most of those posts are still gapped as few have been disestablished formally; the resultant being that those still within HM's Light Blue are feeling the strain.

Appreciate the other Services are suffering equally but I cannot speak for those from first-hand experience.

Still, a "no more than 1% pay increase per annum" (i.e. a real terms pay cut if inflation is greater - which it WILL be) will do wonders for attracting those keen for a rewarding and financially secure career, defending the very constitution that dictates such terms. Meanwhile.....MPs get their 10%+ pay increase. IPSA and the AFPRB are clearly different in SO many ways.

We should ALL benefit from a growing economy, fairly and squarely.

[Biggus]

So when exactly is SDSR 2015 (or should that be 2016?) due to be announced?

The best I could find with a quick google search was a quote made in April of "towards the end of the year".

[Chris Kebab]

MMIMB - My Mate in Main Building - he says "last week of November".

........2015.

[Biggus]

CK,

Thanks for that....

[Could be the last?]

i think the release date is either the 24 or 27 of Nov. If it is the latter, then it will probably get lost in a Friday press release, hidden underneath some other government tosh to hide whatever bad news is heading our way!

[Never Fretter]

Reaper to be replaced by: "Certifiable Predator B" (http://aerossurance.com/news/uk-certifiable-predator-b/)

[Willard Whyte]

They're gonna have to come up with a catchier name, even if it's simply 'Predator D'.

[XR219]

Call Me Dave already has. It's to be called "Protector" (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/lethal-predator-drones-re-branded-6577871).

[Sandy Parts]

Following that naming convention, will the next model be "Extra Safe" ?
(I'm foreseeing much japery on the net - "Protector callsign Mission31, cleared to enter the box"....)

[Willard Whyte]

I'm foreseeing much japery on the net

"ribbing", surely?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Apparently the Irish are procuring Protector, and will send two on every mission. To be sure, to be sure.

[Wander00]

And the next one "extra sensitive" no doubt

[glad rag]

Call Me Dave already has. It's to be called "Protector" (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/lethal-predator-drones-re-branded-6577871).
http://www.durexusa.com/ImageGen.ashx?image=/media/433588/invisible_ultrathin_8pk_angle_295x400.png&width=295&height=400

[MSOCS]

As always, you bring an element of class and erudite charm to the debate, gladius raggus.