More Cuts

[Heathrow Harry]

Today's "Times" leads with a story that once again the MoD is facing the need for more cuts - at least £ 1Bn a year shortfall for the next decade

Main issues are the overrunning "Successor" programme, the cost of the carriers and the £/$ effect on the F-35 and other non-Uk purchases and the failure to make the savings they'd promised in the past

Short term they are going to cut the Royal Marines back and look at "other savings" - apparently they are raiding some of the "Astutes" for kit to keep older boats in service

As the Editorial says we either spend more or cut back the range of missions..............

[4Greens]

The Royal Marines are the most useful all round troops we have. Cut other areas please.

[NickB]

I still wonder if we will ever get the new carriers into service... I just have this feeling they will be sold off...

[Davef68]

I still wonder if we will ever get the new carriers into service... I just have this feeling they will be sold off...


Problem is, for anyone other than Italy, Spain or the US they are just big helicopter carriers.

Brazil might be interested, as I see they are looking at Ocean, but they would have to spend a lot to operate fixed wing from them

[gr4techie]

What cuts are Lockheed Martin making at their top? Or are they underwritten by the public purse?

"We're all in it together" apparently

[Heathrow Harry]

I'm sure the carriers will be commisioned with full pomp and ceremony - and then probably parked for 11 months of the year with a few F-35's occasionaly using them for PR purposes

Long term the big issue is the Successor program - still a long way from completion and costs already escallating badly. Maybe a choice between the detrerrent and conventional forces ...........

[Onceapilot]

The carriers are (s)crap. Time to bin them, make good use of the F-35B in RAF UK/ deployed land basing where 5th Gen is required and sort out the Navy for the level of £££ we have! :ok:
Deterrent is a card we must hold on to.

OAP

[Martin the Martian]

And if we're not going to fly them off ships, perhaps we can move away form the F-35B and switch instead to the F-35A; cheaper and with more capability.

[Buster15]

What a surprise. F35 & CVF are swallowing most of our defence budget. I have said this was a risk in many previous posts. It is about time the Mod procured equipment that met 2 basic requirements capability AND affordability. Can we really afford CVF. If no then why are we buying the least capable yet most expensive F35 version. We have managed without a carrier now for over a decade and yet we have been on constant operations over Afghanistan Libya and Iraq and reading the MoD website our aircraft are performing very well. The Mod always want the latest shiny new toy instead of going for equipment that can do the day job.

[LincsFM]

The Royal Marines are the most useful all round troops we have. Cut other areas please.



Totally agree! I can see the RAF Regt being cutback quite a bit

[Heathrow Harry]

To be fair it wasn't the MoD's idea - the Navy sold the idea to Tricky Tony and at the time it looked as if the finances would allow it to happen

The idea of "affordable" always seems to clash with "requirements" - especially at sea - the number of times the RN has gone for high spec is legendary. Even the latest River Class gunboats cost twice as much as similar ones built for other navies. We haven't been able to sell a new built ship above gunboat size for donkey's years as they are so expensive.

But then if you suggested to the RAF that maybe they'd be better off with 4 times the number of Gripens as F-35's this board would be in melt-down...........

The politicians want armed forces that can do anything at no cost - too many SO's say "yes Ma'am" and the MoD agrees hoping the brown stuff arrives once they have moved to DEn or somewhere or anywhere. The taxpayer doesn't want to pay for anything.......... and this is where we end up......

[Not_a_boffin]

The idea of "affordable" always seems to clash with "requirements" - especially at sea - the number of times the RN has gone for high spec is legendary. Even the latest River Class gunboats cost twice as much as similar ones built for other navies.


If you knew the first thing about the River 2's - and the background to them - you'd know that the price has virtually nothing to do with "high spec" in this case.

[Tinman74]

There is a budget shortage, but a Army General taking out a reporter for lunch to whine about the RAF and RN is laughable, they are about to spam 500mil on CR2 LEP, which is all fur and no knickers, they also have the farcical AJAX procurement and WARRIOR CEP which reduce numbers of AFV.

They also have the elephant in the room which is MIV, so maybe the General is popping smoke to hide his 500 horses for ceremonial duties and the cap badge mafia.

[Onceapilot]

Come-on Mr Fallon! The UK cannot afford a carrier group! The "carrier" fiasco is not of your making. The UK is not going to be rich enough in the near future. A fallback to RAF land based F-35B would keep our foot in the techno door and give a useful 5th Gen capability. The Royal Navy needs to be rebalanced for UK defence and minor foreign intervention, etc, etc. Cancel before the big party for goodness sake! :ugh:

OAP

[RedhillPhil]

Didn't the carriers get ordered in Broon's tenure to buy the Scottish vote?

[Heathrow Harry]

Requirement was around 1999

Contract signed in 2007 just as Blair quit

[Heathrow Harry]

Boffin

I'm aware of the design changes between the Amazonas class and the River 2 Class - the question that eminent commentators such as Conrad Waters and Steve Bush have asked is were they all really necessary?

I'm sure the RN thinks they were - but did we get twice as effective as vessel for our money...........................................

[Politely_amused]

the Army are about to spam 500mil on CR2 LEP, which is all fur and no knickers, they also have the farcical AJAX procurement and WARRIOR CEP

Quite. Ironically though, if you look at operations like Mali (and US Stryker Bdes), what really had utility are agile platforms like 8x8s. Not CR2, Warrior or a huge, heavy tracked 'recce' vehicle. Is there any point in being 'half-pregnant' in the heavy armour game anymore (i.e. spending ~£500m to make a crap tank slightly less crap?).

Is it just me, or does Levene now look like an over reaction that hasn't solved the fundamental problem. It made logical sense at the time but has ultimately brought out the absolute worst in single service skulduggery (particularly in pan-service areas such as aviation) as 'holding to account' is impossible over the time-frames Pgs run across.

At SDSR everyone promised to be good boys and girls and fund their overblown equipment budgets through 'efficiency savings' and 'innovation'. Some might call this buzzword b******s bingo. Surprise surprise, within 2 years it has come home to bite us all in the ass as it was all fantasy land. Maybe, just maybe, we should all get a grip, put our egos to one side and run with the budgets we are given. If that means taking some tough choices with practical rather than 'gucci' Gen blah kit, guess what (and god forbid we reward honesty and 'good behaviour')? It'd be far better than the utter mess Defence has got itself into... again.

[Not_a_boffin]

Boffin

I'm aware of the design changes between the Amazonas class and the River 2 Class - the question that eminent commentators such as Conrad Waters and Steve Bush have asked is were they all really necessary?

I'm sure the RN thinks they were - but did we get twice as effective as vessel for our money...........................................


With no intention of denigrating either party, I'm reasonably sure that neither Bush nor Waters have the slightest idea about the drivers behind the design changes. I'm also sure that "the RN" had very little to do with them either.


You're continuing with the assumption that the Rivers were the result of some sort of RN requirement - as opposed to the reality that they were the result of indecision and delay on another project. The price of them was driven almost entirely by the contractual construct that supported that.


The design changes referred to are actually driven from a statutory PoV. UK MoD has signed up (along with a large number of other mostly NATO navies) to ANEP77, which mandates some minimum standards for safety.


Don't forget what (and who for) the Amazonas were originally......

[Melchett01]

Having listened to SoS this morning, largely employing the usual politicians trick of responding to the question by saying something completely different, but going on about capability, I did wonder just when our senior staffs were going to start regarding personnel as capability to be nurtured, developed and heavens forbid, actually grown?

Never has the phrase 'our people are our best asset' been used so often to such little substantive effect, so I won't hold my breath for a change of tack from viewing people as resource to capability.

[Davef68]

Don't forget what (and who for) the Amazonas were originally......

Souped up batch 1 Rivers? :-)

Was it ever revealed why T&T cancelled them?