Answer to SoS for Defence...

[Lima Juliet]

Secretary of State's speech today: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/reforming-defence-keeping-fighting-fit


"For example, do we need 57 separate sites within the M25?"

It all depends if you want a capability to bail out public services on strike, Minister...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/defenceimages/14704502931/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Firefighters_Training_for_Operation_Fodient_MOD_45157632.jpg
...or would the Minister rather we based our capabilities away from the City?

It all depends if you want a capability to help the lack of investment in flood defences and dredging by local government, Minister...
The Rifles Collection ? Operation Pitchpole (http://riflesmuseum.co.uk/?page_id=756)
Op Pitchpole | Royal Navy (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/operations/uk-home-waters/op-pitchpole)
Senior Regiment Officer Visits Gunners on Flood Relief Operations (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/senior-regiment-officer-visits-gunners-on-flood-relief-operations-19022014)
...I would suggest that your voters would want to know where their help is coming from and where they are going to base that effort from?

It all depends if you make a complete Horlicks of the venue security for a major national event and need the military to sort it out?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/armed-forces-helping-deliver-olympics-security
...and then we still consider contractorisation when the contractors let us down time and again?

It all depends if you want to provide a 'point defence' airborne FJ capability in your City, Minister?
Typhoon fighter planes stationed at RAF Northolt in Olympics military build-up | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138488/Typhoon-fighter-planes-stationed-RAF-Northolt-Olympics-military-build-up.html)
...or are you going to rely on bases further away?

It all depends if you want rapid reaction "boots on the ground" for terrorism, Minister?
400 soldiers patrol Heathrow amid terror fears | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-160010/400-soldiers-patrol-Heathrow-amid-terror-fears.html)
...or are you going to rely on capabilities that could arrive after the horse has bolted?

Quite frankly, this comment shows the naivety of the Minister's advisors. Can he really have forgotten Op OLYMPICS, Op FODIENT, Op PITCHPOLE,, and others so quickly - all used MoD bases inside the M25? Was it Comrade Milliband or Balls that assisted him in order to cause the Tories embarassment? There are inaccuracies and errors throughout on the day that has been banded as '100 days to go' to the election. This is shown by this comment that was also blatted out:

We’ve cut the red tape that can bog down any large organisation.

250,000 computer users used to have to print out and re-sign a form every year to use the IT system.

No longer.


Well Minister, I've been in 'the Mob' for a long time and I cannot, EVER, remember signing paperwork to use an IT system - Dii (both flavours), CHots, Jocs, and many more! Someone is telling you 'porky pies' old boy!

So in light of this speech and its inaccuracies, this sentence feeds me with dread:

Before every Board meeting now I have a comprehensive report on my desk…with an exhaustive overview of what’s going on including the readiness of each of our ships, aircraft and units.

LJ

[iRaven]

We’ve seen Islamist terrorists striking in Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Brussels and Paris.

Are Brussels and Paris countries or Canada, Australia and Pakistan a city? :}

But, Defence is better placed to respond to the threats we face now because over the past four and half years we have delivered one of the biggest defence transformation programmes undertaken in the Western World.

How did you figure that out? We have no aircraft carriers or aircraft to use on them. We have a shrinking fast jet force, no martime patrol capability and pathetic set of ships we call the Royal Navy. :ugh:

preserved our front line clout

What tosh!

[jonw66]

Your middle quote is probably the funniest thing I have read for a while.
I wish it was funny but it really isn't
Contradiction there but you know what I mean
Best
Jon

[MSOCS]

Leon,

Probably refers to the Information Management test we must take and pass each year via the DLP.....

[Lima Juliet]

MSOCS

Nope, never signed it...:confused:

LJ

[Wrathmonk]

Wasn't there some IT Security Instructions that "required" an annual signature? Used to make an appearance just before the pre-AFI visit if I recall. :zzz:

Given we are shortly to enter purdah I suspect this speech is no more than a 'laying down the challenge' to the two Ed's to have to come up with a different way of trying to save money in the next government.....

Only 100 days to go. :mad:

[ShotOne]

Leon, how does the ability to do all those things hinge on the MoD clinging on to particular bits of very expensive London real estate? Whitehall war office and former Brompton Rd tube stn for instance. Their sale raised tens of millions of £'s which can surely be put to better use?

[Lima Juliet]

Shotone

Those examples have already been sold. I think you'll find useful things like Northolt, Wellington Barracks, Regents Park Barracks and a myriad of Reserves' Centres are on his list of 57. All quite useful in their own way and irrereplacable - once they're gone they're gone and no going back.

As for the £380M that he's raised from the sale of Brompton Rd and the Old War Offices amongst some others? This is a piffling amount when you compare it to the recent 'new build' infra like at Worthy Down and RAF Lyneham plus future follies like moving Cosford to Lyneham and other such nonsense - anyway it's the tens of billions on uber expensive equipment from our defense contractors that is where the money is going (all to buy the politicians more votes for jobs).

LJ

[LateArmLive]

Just because you never signed a form to use DII doesn't mean that you weren't meant to! Sadly, my secondary duty for the last year was Unit IT SyO (or something like that). It was basically a form stating you won't use the system for anything other than official work etc.

[Neptunus Rex]

How did you figure that out? We have no aircraft carriers or aircraft to use on them. We have a shrinking fast jet force, no martime patrol capability and pathetic set of ships we call the Royal Navy.

Just like the Defence cuts in 1974. The headline in the RAF News trumpeted:
"Leaner Force Packs Bigger Punch"

I cancelled my subscription that day.

[Selatar]

How terrible and inefficient we are with our "inside the M25" estate Mr Defence Secretary! A sound bite speech as has been stated.

So, 57 sites seems high. It obviously includes all the Reserve centres etc. I wonder if it includes cadet centres and married patches? Not sure of the status of married patches given the MOD does not own the actually property.

We forget much had been sold of late. Project MoDeL shut Bentley Priory, Uxbridge, Mill Hill, Eastcote and West Ruislip and either cut or relocated them to Notholt. Made a pile of cash there.

2013 saw the announcement to close circa 40 reserve centres, quite a few in London. More cash.

Chelsea barracks (old news), OWOB and Brompton road will bring in large sums.

St Johns Wood: lease not renewed unit moved to woolwich. Large savings.

The policy is to sell, sell, sell, especially in London. It is merely the pace of reduction/decline that is the issue in that it is not happening quickly enough for many. Including the Secretary of State it seems. Mind you we do have all those PFI bills to pay....

[skydiver69]

Quote:
We’ve seen Islamist terrorists striking in Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Brussels and Paris.
Are Brussels and Paris countries or Canada, Australia and Pakistan a city?

Quote:
But, Defence is better placed to respond to the threats we face now because over the past four and half years we have delivered one of the biggest defence transformation programmes undertaken in the Western World.
How did you figure that out? We have no aircraft carriers or aircraft to use on them. We have a shrinking fast jet force, no martime patrol capability and pathetic set of ships we call the Royal Navy.

Quote:
preserved our front line clout
What tosh!

All that sounds like the sound bites used when referring to police 'reform' since the current government took over. 'Reforms are working...doing more with less' etc etc

[Not_a_boffin]

Another way of thinking about it might be that he's getting his pleading in early before the next CSR.

You can probably guarantee that one Treasury line will be : "Mr Fallon - why should you avoid cuts when you're sitting on a pile of underused property assets with realisable value?"

As Leon quite rightly points out, the amount realised since SDSR is £380m, which works out as one or two new Typhoons per annum. More to the point, the big value items have already gone, leaving sites potentially requiring big remediation - unlikely to realise huge net amounts.

[ShotOne]

Leon, if your point is that the sums raised are "piffling" that's not the same as saying the policy is wrong. In fact, most sums are piffling relative to the £38 billion of unfunded spending commitments that Mr Fallon and his predecessors have had to find the cash for.

[jindabyne]

Fallon and his speech writers are very adept in playing to the layman's gallery. This latest obfuscatory oration is as lamentable as his first effort at the last Conservative conference.

And this double entendre tells much about the Defence Secretary's fitness for purpose. I imagine that Sir Winston would have had a very articulate response!

But, Defence is better placed to respond to the threats we face now because over the past four and half years we have delivered one of the biggest defence transformation programmes undertaken in the Western World.

[Out Of Trim]

But, Defence is better placed to respond to the threats we face now because over the past four and half years we have

Cut our Soldiers by 20,000; hoping that the New TA will provide the shortfall if required. Not Happening!

Cut our Tornado GR4 Fleet to two Squadrons, most of which are not War Goers

Cut our Harrier Aircraft and practically gave them away to the USA.

Cut our Jaguar Aircraft fleet.

Cut our already paid for Nimrod Fleet.

Cut the number of Naval Ships

Bought the wrong kind of Aircraft Carriers - No Cat & Trap

Ordered the wrong type of F-35 which may appear 5 years after the 1st carrier might be ready.

Sorry, seriously not impressed old boy! :ugh::rolleyes::\

[Flugplatz]

Before every Board meeting now I have a comprehensive report on my desk…with an exhaustive overview of what’s going on including the readiness of each of our ships, aircraft and units.

So a single side of A4 then... after SDR2020 no doubt a text will do

[ShotOne]

I think you'll find, out of trim, that most of those decisions weren't taken by the present administration and none on Mr Fallons watch. Jaguar would have been long gone by now whichever party was in power, although it was chopped about eleven months early by Gordon Brown for budgetary reasons. Nimrod; yes an insane amount of money had been sunk when the plug was belatedly pulled. That doesn't mean it would have been free from that point on. Tornado, as we move towards OSD, a decreasing number of "war-goers" remain. That's why we have an OSD. Carriers; no doubt a vote-winner for Scottish Labour MP's where they're built. But cancelling one, as Fallon's predecessor wanted, would have cost more than building it. Cats/which F35, you might be right. It's been debated here ad-nauseum with about a 50/50 split. You can hardly blame the pollies if the military can't mak their minds up!

[just another jocky]

You can hardly blame the pollies if the military can't mak their minds up!

Surely you mean ex-military! :}

[Melchett01]

Thirdly, how do we get more out of our Whole Force

Easy, stop people from taking leave. Oh sorry, you've already done that by slashing manpower without a concomitant reduction in tasking so those that are left are picking up the pieces and see even less of their families. :D

[Frostchamber]

Without in any way detracting from the various comments above, as someone has hinted this might be some calculated positioning. SoS has said several times that with difficult decisions now taken "we can now start to invest", and even the Chancellor has said any more savings in Defence should be in the nature of efficiencies rather than (further) capability reductions.

Bearing in mind that Defence isn't in the charmed circle of ring-fenced budgets then this might be one of the least worst options for MoD to be seen to be doing its bit, savings-wise, presentationally. Apologies for the cynicism deficit here, I recognise that some is justified and I probably need to re-start my medication.

[Melchett01]

Calculated positioning - that does assume of course that Mr Fallon is still in post on 8 May, which by all accounts is not a certainty.

So with that in mind, just who does have the better record on Defence? It's a tricky one as they both seem as bad as each other, with neither of them truly believing in Defence - you can always tell when politicians are lying about defence, just look for their lips moving.

And good luck if you want to make a side by side comparison of their respective Defence policies; can't find them anywhere in any meaningful form. So just where do we go to make an accurate, objective and informed decision on which party has form and which party is likely to screw us over the most later this year?

[glad rag]

I'd love to see a comparison of operating costs of say, Tornado, Typhoon and F35....

[Hangarshuffle]

I would have thought.....this lot have been awful, and they're conservative=always supposed to have been the party of the military.
With distance now of time, why did the military seem to hate Labour so much? Comparatively, they seemed good.
Labour ministers gave them plenty of combat, plenty of opportunity for war-fighting. A reason to exist.
Weren't that bad on procurement either when they got going (c word again). Most of the barracks, bases accommodation I stayed in were transformed for the better after they got in.
New carriers, Type 45, Bay Class RFA, A class subs....looked good compared to the Cons.

[jindabyne]

Hangarshuffle - Lefty nonsense I'm afraid!

ShotOne - Debateable points; but Fallon is still a most worrying part of the problem, past and present, whichever regime you quote. All of them are culpable in rendering our Armed Forces toothless in any potential conflict beyond that of the Islamic issue. And you didn't mention Harrier, in particular.

Out Of Trim - All valid comments. All open to debate of course. But all contributing to our decline, nevertheless.

[Melchett01]

jindabyne,

I'm certainly no lefty, far from it, but to paraphrase that brilliant film Life of Brian, just what have the Tories ever done for us?

Five years down the line, they really can't keep blaming the last lot no matter how bad one might think they were.

[ShotOne]

"Gave them plenty of combat..opportunity for war-fighting, a reason to exist.." You could also say that of Adolf Hitler, HS. And yes they bought some fabulous expensive kit. The trouble is they didn't budget any money to pay for it.

[Selatar]

1980s was the last post war period of increased Defence spend. It was a combination of maggie and the prospect of the Third shock Army moving West that caused that. Tory cuts in the 90s more than made up for the temporary up arrow in Defence.

Defence issues don't even register on current opinion polls. Whoever wins it will hurt, just in slightly different areas I suspect....

[pr00ne]

Selatar,

How easily one forgets...

Thatchers Government made it's first defence cuts in 1980, then again in 1981, then again in 1982: do you remember the Falklands?

Third Lightning squadron scrapped, order for extra Hawks cancelled, order for extra Sea Harriers cancelled, Sea Dart mk3 scrapped, developed Skyflash scrapped, HMS Bulwark scrapped, order for comms Jetstreams cancelled....

Then there were the cuts that arguably helped make up the Argentinians mind on invading the Falklands: HMS Hermes, Fearless, Intrepid, Endurance and Blake, scrapped, one third of all Frigates and Destroyers scrapped, Royal Marines amphibious lift and airlift scrapped, HMS Invincible sold, so it goes on. A lot of the RN cuts were of course hastily reversed when the Falklands fiasco erupted, but they were Tory defence cuts.

[pulse1]

A questionnaire I have recently received from David Cameron lists 17 issues from which I am asked to select 3 which I consider to be most important to me and my family and the country as a whole.

Defence is not included in either list.

[Selatar]

Pr00ne,

You are correct and the Falklands did change spending policy with the largely Navy bashing Nott Review put on ice. However, the decade did see GDP spend increases and real term increases in defence spend. GDP spend peaked at over 5% (the highest since the 1960s) and real term percentage growth started in 1980 before the Falklands. The light blue also finished the decade with more people than it started it with- a unique stat.

I wasn't there but I always thought the Tory cuts really started in 1990 and the 80s wasn't that bad, notably for the RAF. Also, if cuts were harsh then what were we spending our money on? I defer to those that worked through it.

[dervish]

Thatcher promised all Falklands kit losses would be replaced. Also a lot of midlife updates as a result of lessons.

[Wrathmonk]

However, the decade did see GDP spend increases and real term increases in defence spend

The table on page 4 of this RUSI paper (https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR_Working_Paper_1.pdf) would suggest otherwise...

During the seven years prior to the end of the Cold War, under Mrs Thatcher’s premiership, defence spending fell by 7 per cent in real terms.

The paper also compares how the defence budget has faired against other government departments ....

... in the entire period since the death of Stalin in 1953, the only sustained period in which the defence budget has
grown at a rate comparable with that of total government spending has been in the six years after 1978/79, a consequence of the UK’s commitment (under Prime Ministers Callaghan and Thatcher) to the NATO 3 per cent target for annual real spending increases

and

had it grown at the same rate as the rest of public spending ..... defence spending in 2008/09 would have reached £61 billion, a full £25 billion higher than its actual level.

[Heathrow Harry]

Duncan Sandys who gutted the RAF - now what party was he.....................

[jindabyne]

pulse1

I had a similar questionnaire from my local MP. I replied by putting Defence as one of my three, and asked why it had not been included in the list. No response.