Times details proposed UK defence cut options [Archive]

Heathrow Harry

12th Jan 2018, 16:33

Apparently offered to the new Defence Secretary (and so probably leaked from his office):-

Option 1

59 cap badges removed
Combine 3Commando & 16 Air Assault
remove 7 Class 23 Frigates plus Bulwark & Albion
All 62 Wildcats
All 23 Puma
6 Apache
11 T4 Merlin
Retire Tornadoes early
Cut Ajax Armoured vehicle fro, 589 to 509

Option 2
39 cap badges removed
Remove 3 light infantry regiments and 3 cavalry regiments
Combine 3Commando & 16 Air Assault
remove 2 Class 23 Frigates plus Bulwark & Albion
All 23 Puma
8 Apache
Retire Tornadoes early
Cut Ajax Armoured vehicle fro, 589 to 509
Warrier Upgrade reduced

Option 3
42 cap badges removed
Remove 3 light infantry regiments and 3 cavalry regiments
Remove one strike Brigade
remove 2 Class 23 Frigates plus Bulwark immediately & Albion in 2023
All 23 Puma
All 62 Wildcats
All C130 Hercules
Cut Ajax Armoured vehicle fro, 589 to 509
Warrier Upgrade reduced

NutLoose

12th Jan 2018, 17:07

Puma and Herc fleet huh..... It's getting to a point where it would be easier to list what he intends to keep.

I do wonder what exactly he expects the RN to protect the carriers with when they come on stream.

Heathrow Harry

12th Jan 2018, 17:25

No -that's NOT the current Defence Secretary's proposals - they are the ones presented to him when he got the job in December according the teh Times.

Presumably they are the ones circulating as part of the Defence Review/Security Review that have been causing all the problems - and you can see why.

Elsewhere in the paper one of the more libertarian/right wing columnists stated it really is a choice between a Eurocentric, anti-Russian, strategy with the Army based in (say) Poland) or a marine based long distance intervention armed forces. We can no longer do both and we can't paper over the cracks saying we can any longer.............

Could be a very rough 2018 I'm afraid as I can't see anything about Mrs May that suggests she has a clue about the issues

Lima Juliet

12th Jan 2018, 19:38

This is a link to the actual infographic in The Times...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F7933dd30-f79b-11e7-8e57-f11d372363fa.png?crop=3000%2C2000%2C0%2C0&resize=1200

I reckon that Puma and Wildcat will be gonners. Tornado GR4 OSD brought forward. Procurement of Poseidon and Protector slowed - same initial delivery dates but slower subsequent deliveries. Gazelle is also a gonner so you do have to wonder if the AAC will be tenable with just Apache. There will likely be RAF Regt Sqns in the cap badge loss.

Really surprised to see that Watchkeeper isn’t on the list as well.

Herod

12th Jan 2018, 19:45

There was me thinking that the first duty of a government was the protection of the State and its citizens. Silly, I know.

Alber Ratman

12th Jan 2018, 20:03

Alber Ratman

12th Jan 2018, 20:05

There was me thinking that the first duty of a government was the protection of the State and its citizens. Silly, I know.

Party before Country.. Always has been..:E

Melchett01

12th Jan 2018, 20:23

Cut , cut , cut... Got sod all to do with Beagles favourite subject, but a strong defence is only possible with a strong economy.. That Gentlemen is the truth and our economy is a lot weaker that many on here think it really is.

Sixth largest economy in the world and sixth/fifth (or there abouts on both counts) largest defence budget even accounting for a somewhat anaemic economy.

Given that, why can we not afford to defend the country properly? Or would it be more accurate to ask why do politicians choose not to defend the country properly?

NutLoose

12th Jan 2018, 20:35

That doesn't read right, if you chop just the Puma and that equates to 2000 RAF, how does Puma AND Herc equate to 1500 ? scrap Puma and retire Tonkas early equates to even less at 1250 RAF.

It does make you wonder, waste all that money on Puma upgrade and then scrap it. Surely the fleet utilisation of Chinook will go up as it tries to take up the slack, as will operating costs as a wildcat or Puma must be cheaper to operate than Chinook, and surely a lot of the Navy stuff will not be compatible with operating with and hangering a larger helicopter such as Merlin? Or am I missing something?

Alber Ratman

12th Jan 2018, 21:28

Sixth largest economy in the world and sixth/fifth (or there abouts on both counts) largest defence budget even accounting for a somewhat anaemic economy.

Given that, why can we not afford to defend the country properly? Or would it be more accurate to ask why do politicians choose not to defend the country properly?

Because they are incompentent? Anyone that says Boris Johnson is competent, I would advise to go and see a doctor. Jeremy Hunt should have walked this week. My wife had to see the horrors of an NHS hospital acceptance ward this week. Her mother was told she had stage 4 cancer by a junior doctor in a corridor, next to other patients. Nowhere else free to go and do so. The sodding Government fine Hospital trusts as they cannot fulfil ****** targets. Madness. :ugh::ugh: Corbyns lot are just as bad a thought of course. Need a RAF led Government.. Decent Man Management.

TBM-Legend

12th Jan 2018, 21:31

It seems that not only has the Empire shrunk but so has its protectors

Rotate too late

12th Jan 2018, 21:31

I was with you till that last bit....

Davef68

12th Jan 2018, 21:32

It does make you wonder, waste all that money on Puma upgrade and then scrap it.

Money already spent is of no consequence as it neither saves you anything or cost you anything

Melchett01

12th Jan 2018, 21:35

Money already spent is of no consequence as it neither saves you anything or cost you anything

Unless you’ve spent it on a capability you use now and will continue to need in the future.

Easy Street

12th Jan 2018, 21:44

As Tornado is due to retire in March 2019 (just 14 months’ time) and what little maintenance remains is already on contract, chopping it ‘early’ will save practically nothing. I call BS...

rjtjrt

12th Jan 2018, 22:20

Looking from afar, it looks like UK Defence Force will in future be 2 very nice large aircraft carriers, and rest of the 3 services hollowed out.

Melchett01

12th Jan 2018, 22:44

Looking from afar, it looks like UK Defence Force will in future be 2 very nice large aircraft carriers, and rest of the 3 services hollowed out.

Or as the now retired Com JFC described, Belgium with nukes. Just as well our nuclear delivery system isn’t air based from a carrier. At current rates our carriers could well end up being a military version of a taxi service for those nations who have invested properly. Unfortunately, it seems our Emperors really aren’t too bothered about their new clothes; but they still want the biggest and most expensive wardrobe to impress the neighbours.

pr00ne

12th Jan 2018, 22:49

Or maybe it's just inaccurate nonsense as everything else the Times has had to say about defence has been...

Pure Pursuit

13th Jan 2018, 05:27

ISTAR fleet safe then?

I’d like to see what they think could be cut from that. Couple of Sentrys perhaps but, see any squadrons being chopped.

GR4 will be the sacrificial lamb imho.

[email protected]

13th Jan 2018, 07:46

Hmmm, chopping great chunks out of the helicopter force just as a new training system is starting up with an expensive new contract where the company are paid by the number of students which we suddenly won't need..............

Wander00

13th Jan 2018, 09:14

Good job we still have the Scouts! (Boy Scouts that is)

PPRuNeUser0211

13th Jan 2018, 09:17

Crab,

I'm pretty certain UK PLC are going to lose 'a' helicopter fleet at least. However, what that is depends on what is politically acceptable. My personal money has been on green wildcat for some time (as you can spin it by putting them in a hangar and using them as a 'grey' spares pool). I'm surprised they're throwing both puma and wildcat into the mix but, as everyone says, you only save money by chopping a fleet, not by salami slicing.

Evalu8ter

13th Jan 2018, 11:19

Pba,
If MoD is considering deleting Bulwark/Albion after selling Ocean, then it makes more sense to delete the far more expensive Merlin Mk4 fleet. Moving away from LPH / LPD, MoD is effectively saying "if we need to do LitM we'll use QE/PoW". Post marinisation, Merlin will struggle to match Puma 2 performance in many areas, costs more than a Chinook to buy/run, and if Royal is downsized and the 'phibs scrapped, where is the demand? Plonk 6 Chinooks on QE and you have far more lift than 12-15 Merlins. Before everyone throws a hissy-fit, as someone who's done live LitM and the RM AOPC, I know that there's more to LitM than just landing on a boat - it's just that many don't, and will only see the $$$ saved. By signalling a willingness to scrap the ships, the other enablers should follow. Outside LitM, Puma offers far more flexibility at a greatly reduced cost than Merlin, and therefore, is a better all-round asset.

Jimlad1

13th Jan 2018, 11:50

Amusing how many moans likely coming from brexiteers whose vote to leave was directly responsible for triggering this crisis.

Heathrow Harry

13th Jan 2018, 11:55

Frostchamber

13th Jan 2018, 13:29

lets stay on topic

I'm a full-on Remainer but I honestly thin k this crisis has been coming for years.

The last Labour Govt committed to some very expensive kit (F-35, Carriers, SSBN replacement etc) which was much needed. After the financial melt down the cash just hasn't been there but it's been salami slicing by the Coalition & the Tories rather than face up to the real decisions.

Those can no longer be avoided Brexit or no Brexit

What's galling is that there was a big fanfare a while back saying all this had been sorted once and for all. Difficult decisions had been taken, the black hole eliminated and basket-case MoD planning had been fixed, with finances finally on a sound footing and a sizeable contingency built in. I can't see that post-referendum exchange rates are entirely to blame for the apparent reversal.

I also don't see how cuts on the scale described in the Times article (which as has been pointed out may well be bolleaux) could ever be squared politically with HMG's stated position on defence. They may of course be part of a softening up exercise so the actual cuts seem less severe when they happen.

It may also be the case that someone has decided to selectively leak the "unthinkable" end of the options looked at, which are always included for completeness so they can be eliminated, to generate hostile reaction.

Chinny Crewman

13th Jan 2018, 13:36

Interesting that no one here is suggesting the military should take a long look in the mirror. Single service protectionism, duplication, unnecessary regulation, inefficient use of assets and real estate. Lots of savings to be made in house if we really wanted but it’s easier to blame the politicians.

Chinny Crewman

13th Jan 2018, 14:07

the chiefs should be telling the pollies to bail out MOD

We have the 5/6th largest defence budget in the world. Maybe we should manage it better?

Buster15

13th Jan 2018, 14:20

As Tornado is due to retire in March 2019 (just 14 months’ time) and what little maintenance remains is already on contract, chopping it ‘early’ will save practically nothing. I call BS...

Quite correct. I was also about to point out that the various plans to upgrade Typhoon to take on the current Tornado attack and reconaissance roles have not been completed and therefore we will have a significant capability gap, but then I remembered that this no longer seems to matter to anyone. What a sad and depressing state of affairs...

tucumseh

13th Jan 2018, 14:30

We have the 5/6th largest defence budget in the world. Maybe we should manage it better? Well said. Worth remembering that on 19 November 2001, and again on 13 December 2001, the Chief of Defence Procurement ruled it was a 'routine expectation' of any project or programme manager to save 30% from his budget, without affecting time, performance or operational capability. When Steve Webb MP wrote asking Minister how often that had been achieved, MoD refused to reply. OK, my tongue is slightly in cheek, as CDP was a fool, but he must have got the notion from somewhere and would be insane to issue such a written declaration if he could not back it up with evidence. Even if 10% of projects could realise such a benign saving, that's a lot of money.

Phantomraspberry

13th Jan 2018, 22:04

The very obvious and sensible solution is to sell both the new aircraft carriers....to Brazil or the USMC or KSA or Zimbabwe.
We don’t need the carriers nor can we afford them or man them.

The last time we actually needed carriers was in 1982. That’s as far away now to us as WW2 was to the 82 generation. There is no military justification for aircraft carriers now, unless you happen to represent the US (or Zimbabwe).

There is simply no credible argument for them.

Unfortunately, as we all know, selling the carriers would be a national embarrassment but it would be the correct decision.

It would release funds to maintain a balanced force and prevent the desperate search for manpower.

Jimlad1

13th Jan 2018, 22:08

Uhh Uhaaaarrrrrrr...

Nothing to do with Brexit.. Red Herring.. You are the Weakest Link... Goodbye.

No Sir, no there wasn't a reasonably balanced budget pre 2015 based on a rate of exchange at a certain level.

No there wasn't a significant and sustained collapse in the pounds exchange rate which has had an enormous impact on the ability to buy stuff, due to a sudden and large variance between planned exchange rates and actual exchange rates.

I must have imagined this financial car crash, such was my elation at the prospect that a bunch of my countrymen have decided to take this country back decades, after being sold a bunch of lies by the tabloid press and extremist political parties and then creating the conditions which is seeing this country hurtle headfirst into a strategic crisis the likes of which will take decades to recover from.

Thank god I imagined all of that, otherwise we'd be in a bit of trouble now wouldnt we...

langleybaston

13th Jan 2018, 22:25

Jimlad1

13th Jan 2018, 22:30

A substantial part of "the trouble that we are in" is that the Remoaners cannot accept the verdict of the democracy that they espouse.

Which is the default position of the EU that they love; never mind referendum results, have another one. Or another. Bound to get it right sooner or later.

You mean like brexiteers who spent 40years moaning after the first referendum, and now expect everyone to STFU and not do as they did?

langleybaston

13th Jan 2018, 22:44

That's in the imagination. I believe the majority of Brexiteers scarcely noticed when they were hoodwinked into bondage, it took many years for them to wake, and Nigel Farage to stir them and the Tories to action.

Lets see: pesticides that worked were banned, vacuum cleaners that sucked were banned, light bulbs that gave adequate light instantly were banned, kettles that boiled quickly were banned ............ after a while the complacent worms turned.

Then there are the EU accounts which have never ever been signed off by auditors. Some of us do not like being swindled and shafted overtly, we prefer subtelty.

NutLoose

13th Jan 2018, 22:55

You missed washing machines that washed off the list.

Heathrow Harry

14th Jan 2018, 07:30

For Gods sake can we stop turning every thread into a re-rum of Jet Blast on Europe?

as I've said the link between Defence Cuts & Brexit is tenuous - the only possible connection is the fall in the value of the pound - but that went up and down over the period we're talking about anyway

ORAC

14th Jan 2018, 07:48

The big hole is caused by the fact that the Trident replacement was added to the defence budget when it used to be a stand-alone cost. Take it out again and the problem disappears.

reds & greens

14th Jan 2018, 08:12

PapaDolmio

14th Jan 2018, 08:25

It would release funds to maintain a balanced force and prevent the desperate search for manpower.

Sadly I suspect the money would disappear into the Govt coffers and never be seen again. Also I can't see how it would improve recruiting. A career (or job)in the Armed Forces is not seen as an attractive option for most of society due to a multitude of reasons, most of which are outside our control

NutLoose

14th Jan 2018, 10:47

The big hole is caused by the fact that the Trident replacement was added to the defence budget when it used to be a stand-alone cost. Take it out again and the problem disappears.

Scrap Trident and by an off the shelf system from North Korea :E

The B Word

14th Jan 2018, 11:03

The terrible serviceability rates of the E-3D Sentry, coupled to the low availability and flying rates they attain, mean that 2-3 can go. Get rid of Sentinel, which came in as a UOR only, - has that requirement ended? Lose 2 Shadow and put RJ at Mildenhall. Close Waddington (with the exception of the Creech/Drone interlink).

Would also need to find a home for the AWC?

Sentinel was a core programme and not a UOR. Also, the Allies love its product - currently seen as the best out there. Current OSD is 2021.

Mildenhall is due to close and the RJ det to move to Germany.

We’re tied into NATO for AWACS so we either carry on, upgrade it so that a lot of the issues go away, pay lots to join in the NATO AEW&C deal or replace it with something better.

Shadow is growing due to customer demand.

More likely to leave Creech than Waddo. However, keeping footprints on either side of the globe means that 24/7 ops can do extended day shifts each.

Sorry me old, closing Waddo? That would be a bad idea.

The B Word

chopper2004

14th Jan 2018, 12:03

Would also need to find a home for the AWC?

Sentinel was a core programme and not a UOR. Also, the Allies love its product - currently seen as the best out there. Current OSD is 2021.

Mildenhall is due to close and the RJ det to move to Germany.

We’re tied into NATO for AWACS so we either carry on, upgrade it so that a lot of the issues go away, pay lots to join in the NATO AEW&C deal or replace it with something better.

Shadow is growing due to customer demand.

More likely to leave Creech than Waddo. However, keeping footprints on either side of the globe means that 24/7 ops can do extended day shifts each.

Sorry me old, closing Waddo? That would be a bad idea.

The B Word

Nope the RIvet Joints are staying in UK ...Fairford is being tipped as the Newman location however there is also talk of having a joint USAF -RAF RIvet Joint base

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/us-uk-considering-joint-rc-135-base/

Can’t exactly fit Rivet Joints onto say Ramstein or Spang without a helluva lot of work to be done in terms of supporting infrastructure ( hence some work has. Or is or will be started at Fairford)

You are thinking of the Bloody Hundreth relocating to Ramstein with their tankers. Bearing in mind that the ‘Halls stay of execution keeps getting pushed back and also the Germans are not overly happy about increase in movements from USAfE bases and they limitations on Flying out of hours compared to here.

Cheers

Pure Pursuit

14th Jan 2018, 14:01

andrewn

14th Jan 2018, 14:57

Heathrow Harry

14th Jan 2018, 16:18

if Merlin goes how will we get anyone on the carriers to shore? Chinook????

Speedywheels

14th Jan 2018, 16:23

if Merlin goes how will we get anyone on the carriers to shore? Chinook????

......and what happens with Crowsnest which is currently being developed for Merlin integration?

Seaking93

14th Jan 2018, 17:09

......and what happens with Crowsnest which is currently being developed for Merlin integration?

Crowsnest will be fitted to Merlin 2 not Merlin 4

Heathrow Harry

14th Jan 2018, 17:11

hey! they'll have the T45's to defend them..................

PPRuNeUser0211

14th Jan 2018, 17:13

AndrewN - exactly what slack is Wildcat going to pick up that Merlin/puma currently do? It's not a lift asset....

andrewn

14th Jan 2018, 17:33

AndrewN - exactly what slack is Wildcat going to pick up that Merlin/puma currently do? It's not a lift asset....

So I'm pretty sure the Army Wildcat is tasked with moving equipment and boots around the battlefield, much the same as Puma - but don't disagree with you that it's capabilities in this space are somewhat limited. On the plus side we've still got 60 Chinook's to play with!

Heathrow Harry

14th Jan 2018, 17:39

Would the Chinooks have to stay on deck or are the lifts big enough to take them down for stowage, repair etc etc

andrewn

14th Jan 2018, 17:54

if Merlin goes how will we get anyone on the carriers to shore? Chinook????

ah the carriers - those soon to be rusting hulks that we couldnt afford when we ordered them, can't afford to man and maintan them now, and have no practical use for!

Now what was the question?

[email protected]

14th Jan 2018, 18:20

So I'm pretty sure the Army Wildcat is tasked with moving equipment and boots around the battlefield, much the same as Pumahahahahahahaha - they reduced the room available in the cabin from what the Lynx had so the Army Wildcat's lift capability is minimal. I think you are lucky to get 5 troops in fighting order but it might even be less.

Oh and it has very limited endurance.

The Puma, in its new guise and when it is serviceable, is a far better support helicopter.

The AAC didn't want the Wildcat but if it goes, along with some AH, it doesn't leave a very big 'Corps'

andrewn

14th Jan 2018, 18:45

hahahahahahaha - they reduced the room available in the cabin from what the Lynx had so the Army Wildcat's lift capability is minimal. I think you are lucky to get 5 troops in fighting order but it might even be less.

Oh and it has very limited endurance.

The Puma, in its new guise and when it is serviceable, is a far better support helicopter.

The AAC didn't want the Wildcat but if it goes, along with some AH, it doesn't leave a very big 'Corps'

that is funny - sounds like an inspired purchase! Agree with you that the future for Army aviation looks pretty bleak. But at least we'll have the carriers.... :)

alfred_the_great

14th Jan 2018, 19:16

Id suggest there is a decent chance the AAC are offered transfers to the FAA and RAF...

skydiver69

14th Jan 2018, 19:28

Every time we cut our armed forces I'm left with a feeling of relief that we can't possibly cut any more, but then a few years later we seem to find ways to make more cuts. Ocean is going which leaves Albion and Bulwark as the only way to make maritime landings so if they go we lose an important part of our military flexibility. Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are both touted as flexible platforms but they can't perform the same role as Albion and Bulwark, particularly if they have to provide air support as well as a helicopter platform. The loss of more frigates also seems foolhardy if we want a decent amount of protection around either of the carriers. Lastly at risk of mentioning the B word, these proposed cuts will make it harder for us to maintain a high profile on a world stage of the sort that the Tories envisage post Brexit.

Melchett01

14th Jan 2018, 23:25

The smart money here is obviously on a RW fleet cull. Merlin 4 and Puma 2 seem most at risk, with Chinook (and to a lesser extent) Wildcat picking up the slack. Binning Puma 2 helps free up a nice load of real estate within commuting distance of the capital, which wont be going unnoticed by the lunatics running the asylum.

Obviously, in this case, everything is tied to the proposed Army cuts. If they do happen at that scale then the argument for culling RW becomes so much easier...

Hmmm, I’m a bit out of the loop these days, but I doubt it’s that simple. Get rid of all your medium SH, with Bulwark and Albion also at risk? Then you really do have to start asking what about the Marines. You really don’t want to have to use an aircraft carrier just to land a few hundred light infantry. Be good for top cover for the landings mind, but that’s about it. Plus, have you actually seen up close the size of a Chinook? Great for lugging heavy kit around and large scale troop infils, but occasionally you need a smaller cab able to get in and out of smaller spaces and with a slightly lower acoustic signature. Unfortunately that just isn’t Wildcat.

Plus, with all the other bits at Benson you’d have to find a home for, I wouldn’t be too sure selling Benson is the easiest answer. And the humanitarian use for RW means they will always be around, even if we’re not doing war fighting.

m0nkfish

15th Jan 2018, 02:28

No Sir, no there wasn't a reasonably balanced budget pre 2015 based on a rate of exchange at a certain level.

No there wasn't a significant and sustained collapse in the pounds exchange rate which has had an enormous impact on the ability to buy stuff, due to a sudden and large variance between planned exchange rates and actual exchange rates.

I must have imagined this financial car crash, such was my elation at the prospect that a bunch of my countrymen have decided to take this country back decades, after being sold a bunch of lies by the tabloid press and extremist political parties and then creating the conditions which is seeing this country hurtle headfirst into a strategic crisis the likes of which will take decades to recover from.

Thank god I imagined all of that, otherwise we'd be in a bit of trouble now wouldnt we...

Exchange rates vary all the time. Pre referendum the pound v dollar was averaging around 1.6, since the referendum we have seen it go as low as 1.20 but its now back to 1.37 and climbing. Like I said, these rates change all the time, any sensible procurement decision will be based on some movement left or right. I'm sure the longer term value of the pound is what is more important, and its still too early to tell which way it will go.

heights good

15th Jan 2018, 03:05

So I'm pretty sure the Army Wildcat is tasked with moving equipment and boots around the battlefield, much the same as Puma - but don't disagree with you that it's capabilities in this space are somewhat limited. On the plus side we've still got 60 Chinook's to play with!

Wildcat is a complete non-entity and cannot even remotely compete with Pu/Me in any capacity, even the AAC acknowledge it is abysmal. It was a 100% political purchase.

Whilst not a great source, the report is broadly accurate http://www.eliteukforces.info/uk-military-news/09102017-army-air-corps-uksf.php

gsa

15th Jan 2018, 06:01

Wildcat is a complete non-entity and cannot even remotely compete with Pu/Me in any capacity, even the AAC acknowledge it is abysmal. It was a 100% NAVY purchase.

Changed it for you. But the Lynx/Wildcat was never to compete with Puma or Merlin so that argument doesnt stand. If wildcat goes give the AAC the Pumas then everyone will be reasonably happy.

PapaDolmio

15th Jan 2018, 07:46

Changed it for you. But the Lynx/Wildcat was never to compete with Puma or Merlin so that argument doesnt stand. If wildcat goes give the AAC the Pumas then everyone will be reasonably happy.

And Chinook- let the Army find the money to operate them from their budget and let the RAF concentrate on FW.

Chinny Crewman

15th Jan 2018, 08:21

And Chinook- let the Army find the money to operate them from their budget and let the RAF concentrate on FW.

There is an argument for having all RW in one service although I would argue give them all to the RAF. As High Spirits says many would not transfer, I like the way the RAF does aviation not so the other services.

heights good

15th Jan 2018, 08:28

I am sure the army ‘crewmen’ would get on fine with such a complicated and demanding aircraft....

Heathrow Harry

15th Jan 2018, 08:38

"best of luck with getting all those RAF Chinook crews to transfer"

and there was me thinking we all pull together for the sake of the nation's defence....................

Chinny Crewman

15th Jan 2018, 08:48

and there was me thinking we all pull together for the sake of the nation's defence....................

We do and have done in the past however I’ve seen the way the Army treats it’s aviators.

dervish

15th Jan 2018, 09:02

Engineering would be a showstopper aswell.

That could be taken two ways!

melmothtw

15th Jan 2018, 09:18

If you mean a transfer of assets to AAC then best of luck with getting all those RAF Chinook crews to transfer, or finding enough AAC crew to start from scratch.

Why wouldn't they trasnfer? I'm assuming that most aircrew joined up because they wanted to be pilots, not because they wanted to be officers in the RAF.

The Germans didn't seem to have too many problems in transferring all of their CH-53s over to the air force from the army not long ago.

I'm sure the longer term value of the pound is what is more important, and its still too early to tell which way it will go.

You keep telling yourself that.

gijoe

15th Jan 2018, 09:29

We do and have done in the past however I’ve seen the way the Army treats it’s aviators.

What? You mean that the Army hasn't fallen into the trap of thinking 'drive 'plane - therefore you are capable of doing anything..'?

The RAF is a train on one set of tracks with a strop signal at every opportunity.

The other 2 services regard their crews as normal people, not demi-Gods, employ flexi-track and are much more fun to work for, alongside and with.

End of. Give RW to FAA/AAC.

Chinny Crewman

15th Jan 2018, 09:36

The other 2 services employ flex-track and are much more fun to work for, alongside and with.

If that is the case why do we have numerous ex AAC and FAA RW aircrew transferring to the RAF because they consider it the better option? The only person from Odiham to have gone the other way was an ex AAC Major who transferred to the RAF, did a couple of tours then transferred back.

PapaDolmio

15th Jan 2018, 10:04

‘And Chinook- let the Army find the money to operate them from their budget and let the RAF concentrate on FW.’

The army already pay to operate Chinook from the Land budget. If you mean a transfer of assets to AAC then best of luck with getting all those RAF Chinook crews to transfer, or finding enough AAC crew to start from scratch.

Fully aware of that after spending a large proportion of my service on SH.Does the Land budget also cover the recruiting, training, maintenance, housing, infrastructure and other 'soft' costs of the SH fleet?

Roland Pulfrew

15th Jan 2018, 11:33

transferring all of their CH-53s over to the air force from the army I think you've answered your own question there.

Evalu8ter

15th Jan 2018, 12:04

The only way for expeditionary assets to truly gain a voice is to stand up under a 4* command of their own. Abolish JHC, move the LitM ships, RM/16AAB, C130 and non-pinging helicopters under one command, then let the individual Services eat their own young....which is exactly why it will never happen. If we make a bold declaration (circa 1981) that we're now an "in area" capability then so be it. However, why have two large carriers if you do that? Does that also mean the end of a "force for good"? The two biggest factors at play here are Osborne's decision to fund Successor through the Defence Budget (and Hammond's / Fallon's tacit acceptance of it...) and the irony of buying COTS from the US (to save R&D/NRE) only to see a circa 20-30% reduction in Sterling against the Dollar. When the ForEx hit an appreciable high before the Crash, as I was working on a PT that spent Dollars, I suggested we "hedge" a few $million in case of a crash - clearly, I was looked at as if I'd grown a second head. A mere handful of months later, Sterling collapsed and a white-faced PTL came back from a meeting with the Treasury. "How did it go?" we asked. "Awful..." came the response, "but, on the bright side, the Lightning II PTL was going in after me......".

melmothtw

15th Jan 2018, 12:18

transferring all of their CH-53s over to the air force from the army

I think you've answered your own question there.

Fair enough, but if the RAF can transfer its entire Merlin force over to the RN then I can't see why it should be so difficult to do the same for the Chinook force and the army.

If it IS a deal breaker for the personnel, then you just retain the current air/ground crews under their current conditions (wearing blue uniforms but under a green command structure), and then when they naturally waste out of the force you replace them with army folk who I am sure would love the opportunity to operate the Chinook.

Not that difficult really.

alfred_the_great

15th Jan 2018, 12:33

Fair enough, but if the RAF can transfer its entire Merlin force over to the RN then I can't see why it should be so difficult to do the same for the Chinook force and the army.

If it IS a deal breaker for the personnel, then you just retain the current air/ground crews under their current conditions (wearing blue uniforms but under a green command structure), and then when they naturally waste out of the force you replace them with army folk who I am sure would love the opportunity to operate the Chinook.

Not that difficult really.

It didn't transfer the "entire force" - it transferred the aircraft. In the mean time, CHF transitioned from SK4 to Merlin3/4. There were no wholesale transfers of personnel to accompany the airframes.

melmothtw

15th Jan 2018, 12:37

Quote:
Originally Posted by melmothtw View Post
Fair enough, but if the RAF can transfer its entire Merlin force over to the RN then I can't see why it should be so difficult to do the same for the Chinook force and the army.

If it IS a deal breaker for the personnel, then you just retain the current air/ground crews under their current conditions (wearing blue uniforms but under a green command structure), and then when they naturally waste out of the force you replace them with army folk who I am sure would love the opportunity to operate the Chinook.

Not that difficult really.

It didn't transfer the "entire force" - it transferred the aircraft. In the mean time, CHF transitioned from SK4 to Merlin3/4. There were no wholesale transfers of personnel to accompany the airframes.

So all future Merlin crews will be sourced from the RAF? If not, then you've just repeated by argument - transfer the aircraft first with the crews retaining their current status, and then over time the crews will follow as older RAF pilots/ground staff are replaced with newer army ones.

Heathrow Harry

15th Jan 2018, 14:07

gents - this is Angels dancing on Pins stuff -

Once the Treasury can get each service fighting it's own corner and damning the others we're lost - this is how we lost the Harriers and the carriers last time

the only answer is to stop the cuts otherwise it doiesn't matter what colour uniform people wear we're all b******* as a nation

Not_a_boffin

15th Jan 2018, 14:55

Once the Treasury can get each service fighting it's own corner and damning the others we're lost -

And not just the Treasury. The NSA appears to want his own cyber-empire - in a fiscally neutral manner...

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/national-security-strategy-committee/work-of-the-national-security-adviser/oral/75927.pdf

OyYou

15th Jan 2018, 15:44

"Plus, with all the other bits at Benson you’d have to find a home for, I wouldn’t be too sure selling Benson is the easiest answer. And the humanitarian use for RW means they will always be around, even if we’re not doing war fighting."

Pedant mode [ON]
As Benson was a compulsory purchase in 1937, under Crichell Down Rules is has to be offered back to the original landowners, some of which are still major farmers in the area. What they would choose to do with it is anyone's guess. [OFF]
Regards

glad rag

15th Jan 2018, 15:53

we're all b******* as a nation

Ahhh now you see that depends on what your vision of the nation is....

https://www.defendevropa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/1FA10893-BA55-42F9-A173-6C9DC8F357A8-349-0000010B22F638E7.jpeg

heights good

15th Jan 2018, 15:55

What? You mean that the Army hasn't fallen into the trap of thinking 'drive 'plane - therefore you are capable of doing anything..'?

The RAF is a train on one set of tracks with a strop signal at every opportunity.

The other 2 services regard their crews as normal people, not demi-Gods, employ flexi-track and are much more fun to work for, alongside and with.

End of. Give RW to FAA/AAC.

In nearly 20 yrs, I have NEVER seen anyone transfer from the RAF to the Army, but literally about 20 come the other way.

Wander00

15th Jan 2018, 16:28

aah, DA - Harrow County Girls School's finest, not

floating_rock

15th Jan 2018, 17:20

I think the above 15 or so posts illustrate so much of what is wrong with our RW aviation setup - the tri-service bickering does zip all for any of us, and inhibits us at every step.

How about going radical - post everyone, under whatever guise to JHC, allowing freedom of movement between fleets as required - with a natural bias of people to their home service. We already have significant numbers of AAC backfilling Puma, FAA backfilling AH, and RAF backfilling AAC and FAA QHI slots.

This would allow a more flexible manning structure, fitting in with ever changing manning priorities. (The incoming exodus from AAC when the last FRI time bar runs out in 2 years, for example).

Additionally, massive savings could be made by rationalising the number of headquarters, rather than triplicating many roles in what is now a small community.

If we hadn't had tri-service bickering, then Blackhawk & Seahawk may well have been a single platform solution to many of Wildcat \ Puma \ green Merlin's roles (UK company procurement aims aside), saving God knows how much in procurement, training, and giving us sensible economies of scale, rather than having a large number of small fleets.

Cazalet33

15th Jan 2018, 17:24

I have NEVER seen anyone transfer from the RAF to the ArmyI personally know two.

One was a rockape who went to a not-so secret campsite near the Welsh border. The other was a helicopter pilot who did something very similar.

Chinny Crewman

15th Jan 2018, 19:20

How about going radical - post everyone, under whatever guise to JHC, allowing freedom of movement between fleets as required

Because there would still be single service considerations: the Army would want it done their way with all of their regulations, the Navy would etc.... The upshot would be as it is now, you have multiple rule books to follow and you end up with confusing, inefficient duplication.

Let’s get really radical and put all RW into one service. Those that don’t like it can leave.

Alber Ratman

16th Jan 2018, 00:21

I personally know two.

One was a rockape who went to a not-so secret campsite near the Welsh border. The other was a helicopter pilot who did something very similar.

One of my fellow JTs in RAFG did the same thing.. Why a rigger would ever wish to want to be Lewis Collins always had me scratching my head, but then I saw his bad taste in women and stopped doing so.

Aynayda Pizaqvick

16th Jan 2018, 03:51

Not even CGS wants the Apache, but he does want the money that comes with having it. Once the Army doesn't have Wildcat, the argument for the AAC starts to dwindle. Admittedly the RAF will only really have one SH type if Puma does get chopped however, the Chinook Force will still be bigger than the AAC and CHF combined! Interesting to see talk of Puma being axed; given the lift of the aircraft post update and the speed with which it can be deployed globally (as demonstrated recently in the Caribbean), it offers a capability not found elsewhere in defence, and which is basically already paid for. I would be very surprised to see it go before its 2025 OSD.

My vote would be to ditch JHC (can't see many in JHC arguing against that bit!), let CHF go fully back to Fleet, AAC assets over to RAF and allow Land to concentrate on stuff on land.

TBM-Legend

16th Jan 2018, 04:15

Give the Chinooks to Army and split the rest between Army and Navy and let the RAF concentrate of fixed wing...

[email protected]

16th Jan 2018, 05:23

TBM - you, and some others, clearly have no idea of the gulf that exists between the AAC and the RAF SH Force in terms of organisation, training. engineering and especially rearcrew.

TBM-Legend

16th Jan 2018, 06:41

Well even Australia managed the change. The RAAF does not fly helos anymore. The Army and RAN do it very well these days...

Heathrow Harry

16th Jan 2018, 07:01

Red Line Entry

16th Jan 2018, 07:46

As things stand, that's not a bad set of priorities. The defending Europe bit highlights what will NOT change as a result of Brexit.

We have some difficult decisions ahead and we need to be realistic that more money is not coming our way. For the majority of the British public, the amount of GDP we currently allocate to Defence is generally considered sufficient. I see no public marches demanding we cut the NHS to pay for more Defence.

Our problems have come from committing to buy too much capability for the budget we have available. The 'conspiracy of optimism' that Bernard Gray reported on is alive and well in the MoD. If we were given another £10Bn a year, within a decade we would be faced with the same issues.

Until we break our habit of overspending, we are always going to suffer.

The Old Fat One

16th Jan 2018, 08:37

As things stand, that's not a bad set of priorities

Perhaps, I think maybe it depends on ones foreign and domestic security policy objectives. Here is a (viable) alternative:

1. The defence of the UK.
2. The permanent 4 boat deterrent.
3. The optimisation of homeland security.

Not saying I agree with either one...simply stating that there are some pretty successful nations on this planet that seem to survive and flourish with much simpler (less expensive) military hardware.

Of course most of them don't possess an IND, but p'haps we call all agree that is a slightly different dynamic.

langleybaston

16th Jan 2018, 08:59

110 years ago or so:

On 8th December 1888 Mr Edward Stanhope, Secretary Of State for War, minuted Adjutant-General Viscount Wolseley with what became known as the Stanhope memorandum. This was in reply to the very reasonable question “what is the army for?” In summary, and in order of priority, it was to:

1. Support the civil power in Great Britain
2. Garrison India
3. Garrison all fortresses and coaling stations at war footing
4. Be able to mobilise three Army Corps for home defence
5. Be able to send abroad two complete Corps (but this was “improbable”).

As a civilian I would like to see a tri-service answer to

"What are the armed services for?" and then the enabling three service's contributions. These answers should come from "what is/are the threats for the next 30 years". Get that wrong and we can be buggered.

Not_a_boffin

16th Jan 2018, 09:40

In parliament yesterday Defence Sec refused to comment on the three options for cuts or on timescale for Defence Review but staed his priorities were:-

1 the defence of Europe

2. The permanent 4 boat deterrent

3. Building a successful Carrier based strike force

What he actually said was this :

Although the detail must wait until after the NSCR concludes, I can assure the House that as long as I am Defence Secretary we will develop and sustain the capabilities necessary to maintain continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence, a carrier force that can strike anywhere around the globe and the armed forces necessary to protect the north Atlantic and Europe; and we will continue to work with our NATO allies. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and I will be doing all we can to ensure that we have a sustainable budget, so that we can deliver the right capabilities for our armed forces.

Just to provide context on emphasis. He also added this :

I think that all Government Members recognise the importance of making sure that we maintain conventional forces, and the fact that we have to have a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent; but we cannot have one and not the other. We have to ensure that we have that ability so that, if we are in a point of conflict, there is deterrence at so very many levels. That is why having robust armed forces—the Army, Navy and Air Force—is so incredibly vital.

None of which guarantees any money, obvs.

jindabyne

16th Jan 2018, 09:48

I'd like to see your opinion Langley ----

Arclite01

16th Jan 2018, 10:23

what a great phrase 'doing all we can'

Means absolutely nothing......................

right up there with 'best endeavors' for me (which again means nothing)

Arc

NutLoose

16th Jan 2018, 12:13

Although the detail must wait until after the NSCR concludes, I can assure the House that as long as I am Defence Secretary we will develop and sustain the capabilities necessary to maintain continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence, a carrier force that can strike anywhere around the globe and the armed forces necessary to protect the north Atlantic and Europe; and we will continue to work with our NATO allies. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and I will be doing all we can to ensure that we have a sustainable budget, so that we can deliver the right capabilities for our armed forces.So the Carrier force can strike anywhere around the world, but the ground forces you need in any offensive action to back that up will simply be to protect Europe and the North Atlantic.... It does read as if one does not neccessarily support the other, one being area limited and a defensive posture, the other being global and offensive.

The second part could be read as we will provide the budget and capabilities to the armed forces proportionate to the size we intend to cut them too. :E

pr00ne

16th Jan 2018, 14:16

Red Line Entry

16th Jan 2018, 17:06

Nutloose,

He simply gave his top 3 priorities. It is not unreasonable to assume that he thinks the MOD should be capable of also doing other things and he specifically did not say that the ground forces were simply to protect Europe.

glad rag

16th Jan 2018, 17:31

Door Slider

16th Jan 2018, 17:46

Nice to see Britain’s overseas territories get a mention..........

Finningley Boy

16th Jan 2018, 18:17

Make defence of the UK the number one priority as opposed to the defence of Europe?

If that policy was adopted then prepare for HUGE cuts as there is no specific threat to the safety of the UK out there and none on the horizon.

I think the priorities as stated make sense in today's world.

I thought we remained committed to NATO as always and the likelihood of Russian Hegemony just as much a concern to ourselves as the rest of Europe? The SNP with there sudden concern about the Russians, never quite the same during the Cold War, indicates that there are some unlikely political quarters who don't share your lack of concern about UK defence concerns.

FB

langleybaston

16th Jan 2018, 20:39

I'd like to see your opinion Langley ----

You did ask, and I write as an 80 year old patriot ex MoD scientist who has seen a lot and seen a lot of b*llocks in my time. None of what follows may be feasible or wise, just an opinion from the reasonably informed non-expert.

I can deal quickly with the old set:

Support the civil power in Great Britain is the only survivor, and should be capable of being taken as read.

Decide if we keep Falklands, Gibraltar, SBAs Cyprus etc IN THE LONG TERM and base RAF transport requirements on that, and no further.

Prioritise air defence UK and ground support NATO. RAF to concentrate on Chinook

Provide one all-arms division to support NATO; light forces para, marines to scale to support maintenance of Falklands etc. Army to maintain Apache.

Navy to scrap carriers, maintain 4 missile boats and 8 hunter killers, RAF to provide top cover when leaving/ joining. Navy to have mixed fleet frigates and smaller only.

Maximum effort on cyber warfare.

Bring back outsourced services such as maintenance, catering into MoD

Forget all the equality nonsense, it will happen by a natural osmosis process rather than PC straining.

Melchett01

16th Jan 2018, 20:58

Well whilst we’re making our minds up what we should do, looks like we might get the chance to support the French in Africa:

Britain prepares to send military helicopters for French campaign against Islamists in Sahel (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/16/britain-prepares-send-military-helicopters-french-campaign-against/)

By all accounts I’ve heard Mali described as France’s Afghanistan, whilst the UN MINUSMA op is widely regarded as the most dangerous UN op currently running.

All those in JHC that think you’ve got summer leave, one pace forward. Odiham stand fast!

[email protected]

17th Jan 2018, 07:19

TBN - Well even Australia managed the change. The RAAF does not fly helos anymore. The Army and RAN do it very well these days... as I recall, it was a disaster for several years because the 'assumption' was that everyone would just move across. The Army ended up with a load of helicopters they couldn't fly or maintain and a lot of pi**ed-off people.

I think anyone considering messing with our current structure would do well to examine what went wrong there.

Onceapilot

17th Jan 2018, 10:19

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/national-security-strategy-committee/work-of-the-national-security-adviser/oral/75927.pdf

This IS worth a read.
The whole approach and the presented status quo from the interviewed mandarin is one of "we are fully prepared, fully capable, can take on anyone, are fully funded and can do anything". :rolleyes: It would seem that little is wrong. No wonder the UK Gov does what it does. :mad:

OAP

[email protected]

17th Jan 2018, 10:48

Yes, he seems very happy to provide broad-brush answers with positive spin but won't commit to any specifics.

Onceapilot

17th Jan 2018, 12:12

Yes, he seems very happy to provide broad-brush answers with positive spin but won't commit to any specifics.

AFAIK, this "thinking" is the guideline that is supposed to be used to formulate UKGov Defence policy. Despite the bluff and bluster, I bet that he is really just told what there is to spend and which things to prioritise and then, to make the assessment up, to fit! :oh::sad:

So much for a Defence review to fit the real UK Defence needs.:uhoh:

OAP

Not_a_boffin

17th Jan 2018, 12:28

This IS worth a read.
The whole approach and the presented status quo from the interviewed mandarin is one of "we are fully prepared, fully capable, can take on anyone, are fully funded and can do anything". :rolleyes: It would seem that little is wrong. No wonder the UK Gov does what it does. :mad:

OAP

If only he were just a Mandarin. He's the National Security Adviser, don'tcha know - and by implication must therefore know all about National Security...........

What could possibly go wrong etc.

Onceapilot

17th Jan 2018, 13:24

If only he were just a Mandarin. He's the National Security Adviser, don'tcha know - and by implication must therefore know all about National Security...........

What could possibly go wrong etc.

Yes...a big Cheese! ;)

Obviously, fairly knowledgeable and fleet of foot (and mouth!). Notwithstanding his nimble performance in that unclassified content interview, I get the impression his views were based largely on what he has been told will-be by very senior pollies and, I failed to see much evidence that he had formed views from any personal knowledge of Defence needs and capability. Indeed on p.10 of the doc he admitted lacking sufficient knowledge about Northern flank security.
Hmmm, all in all, I remain convinced that UK Defence is based more on party political needs, less on Defence needs.

OAP

Heathrow Harry

17th Jan 2018, 16:07

I think it's worse just money money money

EAP86

17th Jan 2018, 20:11

Short bio here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sedwill

EAP

Bigbux

17th Jan 2018, 21:03

I personally know two.

One was a rockape who went to a not-so secret campsite near the Welsh border. The other was a helicopter pilot who did something very similar.

I bet I know which one could pass his CFT.

cynicalint

17th Jan 2018, 22:31

PrOOne,
You say that there is no specific threat to the UK. All well and good so far, but if you cast your mind back to ground lectures about security, the first point always made was "The biggest threat to security is the perception that no threat exists". This maxim has been borne out for every conflict we have been involved in. From the Falklands, Bosnia, Iraq, etc. we have been caught short on realities of providing military support. That capability is now so perilously close to ineffectiveness, with so many capability gaps, that the Government must seriously review our military capability OR withdraw from the commitments we have made to NATO, and other bilateral agreements. The proposed EU force is a toothless paper tiger and it is time to be realistic about POTENTIAL threats and prepare accordingly. Spend more, or promise less.

NutLoose

17th Jan 2018, 23:36

Totally and utterly agree with the above.

Just look at previous conflicts in the last 30 years and ask have we the capability to do that again and the answer will probably be no. The Falklands for example is a prime interest to the UK because of the natural resources in its waters, could we fight another war for it...NO.

And the typical spiel you get about the new ship etc being 3 times more capable as its 3 predecessor's does not cut the mustard when you need it in three different places.

Jimlad1

18th Jan 2018, 04:39

Who exactly has the capability and intent to invade the Falklands and overcome the existing garrison, and why would they want to?

Heathrow Harry

18th Jan 2018, 06:52

The FI has great resources of fish and looks as if it has some oil - not on the scale of the N Sea sbut yes, resources.

But no-way are they critical to the UK - we fought the war because the people were taken over by a military dictatorship and we were right to do so. I don't think there is any real chance of a repeat in the immediate future (say 5-10 years) but it doesn't cost a great deal to keep a presence there ( great for training) except maybe the River Class boats

And we build them to keep Scots yards open rather than for fighting anyone serious -also the Fi do make a contribution - in $$ which will go up when the oil flow starts

[email protected]

18th Jan 2018, 08:12

also the Fi do make a contribution - in $$ which will go up when the oil flow starts that's why they pay back the UK govt the £millions it costs every year to keep MPA running.................oh no, that's right, they don't.

NutLoose

18th Jan 2018, 09:14

Who exactly has the capability and intent to invade the Falklands and overcome the existing garrison, and why would they want to?

You could have said the same thing thirty odd years ago, but you miss what I was trying to get over, you need to maintain a capability for such a thing happening in the future, no matter how remote, if you don't maintain that capability and it does happen again then you have no chance of retaining it or any other part of the world we deem neccessary.
Keep cutting the Services to the bone and then you have a toss up situation, can you afford to maintain that garrison and its protection or do you move your dwindling resources elsewhere where needed.
Like it or not, the Islands do fall under the protection of UK PLC and as such you need to maintain a credible force to ensure they do.

Onceapilot

18th Jan 2018, 10:04

The FI, just as all other UK assets, need to be protected within the umbrella of UK Defence. The islands also support the UK claim to the large chunk of the Antarctic that we hold. The UK defence of it's territories requires a wide range of capabilities in depth. However, funding is not a bottomless pit of cash and so, to avoid the hollowing out of the core Defence of the realm capabilities, we should not have wasted ££Billions on the ridiculous QEc Expeditionary war capability. TBH, the whole Expeditionary warfare concept is a corruption of UK Defence. UK foreign policy is not one of Crusading AFAIK. The UK is not declared as a nation bent on subjugation of other nations. However, defence can require attack and, the ability to attack and claim territory should be a part of UK Defence core ability. That is the crux. The Expeditionary capability should be drawn from the fully formed, equipped and capable core Defence forces, if required, not the other way around!
The question of how large and capable the core UK Defence forces need to be is simply answered by assessment of the threats and our methods needed to counter them successfully. Some additional elements of capability for limited Expeditionary warfare might be added but, the basic principle must be, core first! Beyond that, unless the UK is considering mounting Crusading warfare against other nations, there is no reason for cutting core Defence capabilities to support Expeditionary pie in the sky and to the great detriment of UK National security. :=

OAP

Just This Once...

18th Jan 2018, 10:37

If that policy was adopted then prepare for HUGE cuts as there is no specific threat to the safety of the UK out there and none on the horizon.

1. Specific threats to the UK require an armed intervention or a conflict.

2. Potential threats require a manned, trained, equipped and funded armed forces - otherwise point 1 becomes moot.

Cazalet33

18th Jan 2018, 12:20

The UK is not declared as a nation bent on subjugation of other nations.Mebbe not now that the country is a broken reed, but once upon a time....
https://www.targetmap.com/ThumbnailsReports/24487_THUMB_IPAD.jpg

Old habits die hard, as the Iraqis and others are endlessly reminded.

Heathrow Harry

18th Jan 2018, 12:49

Tocsin

18th Jan 2018, 13:12

Mebbe not now that the country is a broken reed, but once upon a time....
https://www.targetmap.com/ThumbnailsReports/24487_THUMB_IPAD.jpg

Old habits die hard, as the Iraqis and others are endlessly reminded.

Or even 'countries that the Brits have invaded' :)http://www.edusolution.com/myblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/British-imperilasm.jpg

Onceapilot

18th Jan 2018, 13:53

"The islands also support the UK claim to the large chunk of the Antarctic that we hold."

Actually we don't .. we have a histiric claim as do many others and many of them overlap - the Antarctic Treaty puts these into abeyance

Anyone can go anywhere and set up any base in Antarctica -

Places liek teh S Sandhcih Islands and S georgia are somewhat different

Have you been drinking HH? Actually, what I wrote is correct. I don't need to describe the whole history of Antarctic territory claims to make my point. :ok:

OAP

EAP86

18th Jan 2018, 15:33

Short bio here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sedwill

EAP

I don't want to be appearing to obsess about Mark Sedwill but by coincidence the following appeared in the latest Private Eye and it is relevant to this topic:

Battle of Sedwill's

The government is heading for a showdown over the prospect of serious cuts to the armed forces in the forthcoming National Security Capability Review.

This will pit Mark Sedwill, newly knighted national security adviser (who developed a close rapport with Theresa May at the Home Office when he was the top civil servant) against Gavin Williamson, the new defence secretary and former chief whip who is under strong pressure from top brass to resist cuts.

There is little doubt in Whitehall that the winner will be Sedwill, getting the boost he wants for the intelligence and security agencies, GCHQ and MI5. The message was clear as soon as the review was announced in the summer: the word "defence" does not appear in the title. It is being conducted not by the Ministry of Defence but by Sedwill himself, who regards cyber warfare and terrorism - the domain of the spooks - as the two main threats to Britain's security.

The point is not lost elsewhere in Whitehall, notably the Treasury, that the bulk of defence spending on the new fleet of nuclear missile submarines to replace Trident, and two aircraft carriers with empty flight decks, is of little use against terrorists or cyber attacks. The MoD is also under attack from its traditional friend, the Commons defence committee, over reckless spending. The navy is short of ships, the RAF short of pilots, and the army now not much larger than at the time of Oliver Cromwell. But its over-ambitious projects mean the MoD already faces a funding black hole of at least £20bn

One way to relieve pressure on the defence budget is to take the cost of the nuclear arsenal out of said budget and pay for it separately. After all, say MoD officials, the decision to maintain a nuclear arsenal is a political one - an argument that will attract little sympathy in the Treasury. The armed forces' only consolation is that Williamson appears to have persuaded May to put off making a decision about how their resources will be cut until later in the year.

EAP

Onceapilot

18th Jan 2018, 16:31

I don't want to be appearing to obsess about Mark Sedwill but by coincidence the following appeared in the latest Private Eye and it is relevant to this topic:
EAP

Thank you for posting that Private Eye post. It would certainly appear that interesting things are afoot. The Eye back Sedwill to get support for his perception of risk from cyber and terror, over the risk from conventional warfare. If that is the case, why the Hell are we building and paying for the carriers? I personally feel that there is a growing need for protection from cyber and terror, but not to the detriment of our IND or our conventional forces, apart from... the carriers!

OAP

NutLoose

19th Jan 2018, 07:55

Taken them long enough to figure this out..

MoD 'exposed financially' by carrier and jet programme - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42734191)

They should of asked in here :E

Onceapilot

19th Jan 2018, 09:24

Not_a_boffin

19th Jan 2018, 09:36

Taken them long enough to figure this out..

MoD 'exposed financially' by carrier and jet programme - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42734191)

They should of asked in here :E

What a shame they didn't look at where the money is actually going. QEC isn't even the biggest budget line in the Navy EP. Nor is the combined QEC and F35 the biggest item in the overall EP - in total or in in-year spend. Typhoon is still by far the biggest spend (total and in-year) and FSTA is only just below the combined QEC/F35.

That's before you start looking at the submarine budget....

Onceapilot

19th Jan 2018, 10:34

What a shame they didn't look at where the money is actually going. QEC isn't even the biggest budget line in the Navy EP. Nor is the combined QEC and F35 the biggest item in the overall EP - in total or in in-year spend. Typhoon is still by far the biggest spend (total and in-year) and FSTA is only just below the combined QEC/F35.

That's before you start looking at the submarine budget....

The difference is...The UK Defence forces actually need the Submarine capabilities, the Typhoon capabilities, the long range Tanker transport, the Army etc, etc . UK Defence does not need the QEc ships.

OAP

Not_a_boffin

19th Jan 2018, 10:39

The difference is...The UK Defence forces actually need the Submarine capabilities, the Typhoon capabilities, the long range Tanker transport, the Army etc, etc . UK Defence does not need the QEc ships.

OAP

In your opinion. Not that of the JCB....

Heathrow Harry

19th Jan 2018, 13:03

Boffin

Do you think that if we didn't have them right now we'd actually order two carriers??

Wander00

19th Jan 2018, 13:27

HH, no, Brune ain't PM

langleybaston

19th Jan 2018, 13:55

Boffin

Do you think that if we didn't have them right now we'd actually order two carriers??

Never mind us: I doubt if the RN would want them either. Nothing but grief then, now, and for the forseeable.

Bismark

19th Jan 2018, 14:23

Excepting of course that the SDSR mandates the capability. i.e. the defence programme is written around QEC/F35 and Nuclear deterrence. These are the last capabilities to ditch according to SDSR.

Not_a_boffin

19th Jan 2018, 14:52

Boffin

Do you think that if we didn't have them right now we'd actually order two carriers??

Don't confuse requirement with short-term financial exigency. Right now, we wouldn't order anything - with the possible exception of the deterrent.

You might almost ask if we didn't have them right now, would we order Typhoon? Or a Tornado replacement? Or Rivet Joint? Or A400M? Or HC6? Or T26? Or maintain an army of 80000? Or order new tanks/MICV?

The fact that the future of the Sentry capability is uncertain is a measure of the situation - a situation that has not been brought about by "the carriers", as only a cursory examination of budgets and where they've been spent would reveal. It is particularly disappointing that the chair of the PAC refers to Carrier Strike as the second biggest expense after the nuclear deterrent - which is patently and demonstrably untrue by spending ten minutes looking at the EP and the NAO major projects reports.

If you read the PAC report, it's actually a case of repeating nebulous "facts" - a great example being that the aircraft are "too heavy to land on the ship" - culled from random media sources, as "concerns", despite the fairly firm rebuttals given by the witnesses.

If you look at defence as a combination of what is required for national self-defence, plus what really adds value to an alliance (ie NATO), what you end up with is :

National Defence
Air - AWAC, MPA and DCA
Sea - CASD, plus Sea denial and security (SSK, MCMV, OPV)
Land - Coastal artillery, COIN light forces

Alliance contribution :
Air - Heavy lift AT, sigint, and possibly Sentinel
Sea - SSN, Amphib and Carrier Strike
Land - Possibly heavy armour

Everything else (OCA, Deep Strike, Tac AT, DD/FF, Infantry etc) is heavily duplicated throughout NATO.

The alliance contribution bit above is that which only the US and in their absence the UK and possibly FR can bring to the table. If you want to add value you do that. If you want to duplicate stuff (check out the VFM there!) you buy from the "everything else" list.

Frostchamber

19th Jan 2018, 15:00

Just for the record, not everyone on here shares the antipathy to the carriers that has become notably more vocal in some quarters as the vessels approach service entry. And NAB is not a lone voice in the wilderness.

There are some who are clear that binning the carriers is not the way to address current problems and that they represent a level of capability that wouldn't be remotely matched by a purely escort-based navy; and that we're likely to have cause to be glad we have that flexible capability in the years ahead as the world becomes an increasingly unpredictable and dangerous place.

None of which is to say that we don't need more escorts, and other conventional capability, because we do. But binning some of the most capable assets we have just invested in isn't the answer. Defence needs to be properly funded and I'd respectfuly suggest that commentators would do well to get behind that idea rather than approaching things from an internecine perspective.

Heathrow Harry

19th Jan 2018, 15:25

I'd keep them if the money was there - but it's not " short-term financial exigency" - it's been going on for 20 years

underfunding plus grossly mis-managed budgets

and I can't see how that is going to change - especially under this Govt.

NutLoose

19th Jan 2018, 15:44

The escort group we can probably afford for the new Carriers is below..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2017/08/16/TELEMMGLPICT000137557651_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqPCn1zX15TnSBcpXlL _jV-3LjEptXJ6e6UM8AOqEIFl0.jpeg?imwidth=480

Not_a_boffin

19th Jan 2018, 15:52

I'd keep them if the money was there - but it's not

I'd be interested to hear exactly which bit of the money "isn't there", given that the ships are essentially paid for. There are 30 of the F/W aircraft on order (apparently) and that the manpower for the ships and the air squadrons is already there and part of the existing budget.

There are still manning challenges to overcome, but that is primarily recruitment / retention in pinch trades against authorised strength - as opposed to completely new money.

There's an awful lot of myth and legend about. Don't forget that the "options" which started this thread are also primarily about freeing up money for the cyber / spook wish-list in a financially neutral NSCR, not as a direct result of QE/F35.

Onceapilot

19th Jan 2018, 15:55

Frostchamber

19th Jan 2018, 18:04

[QUOTE=Frostchamber;10024859]Just for the record, not everyone on here shares the antipathy to the carriers that has become notably more vocal in some quarters as the vessels approach service entry....Defence needs to be properly funded and I'd respectfuly suggest that commentators would do well to get behind that idea rather than approaching things from an internecine perspective.
./QUOTE]

Blah, Blah, Blah....

What makes you the voice of reason? Why do you think you have the right idea and the authority to preach to others?
Sorry old chap, this is a discussion of an important topic. Now, I will give a couple of my thoughts... I have read a certain amount of similar banter from those who supposedly think everyone should be waving bunting for the new boats and "those that don't are the enemy". Well, you can stick that misplaced and abusive criticism where the Sun doesn't shine. :eek:
Now, stick to arguing your point and do not abuse others with self righteous and incorrect opinions. :=

OAP

Abusive? Really? I'm sorry if you think that because that certainly wasn't the intention. I'd suggest that nothing I said above comes close to some of the abuse I've seen meted out at times to those who dare to swim against certain tides. It would appear that in your book anyone who doesn't fall in line with the "bin the carriers" meme is in turn the enemy and has "incorrect opinions" and can be talked down to. Stones and glass houses old chap...

NutLoose

19th Jan 2018, 18:09

Notaboffin,

Probably this bit on the Beeb site

But it's not just the cost of the two aircraft carriers that concerns MPs, said the BBC's defence correspondent Jonathan Beale, but the new jets that will fly off them and the other warships needed to protect them.
The availability of ships to protect the carriers may also limit how they can be used and there are still technical and cost challenges for the new F-35 jets, he added.

Onceapilot

19th Jan 2018, 18:19

It would appear that in your book anyone who doesn't fall in line with the "bin the carriers" meme is in turn the enemy and has "incorrect opinions" and can be talked down to.

Please quote me? I will apologise.

OAP

Not_a_boffin

19th Jan 2018, 20:32

Notaboffin,

Probably this bit on the Beeb site

And if you read the actual PAC report and specifically the evidence session - as opposed to the Beeb blurb, you might understand that it's largely recycled media wibble, as opposed to fact...

Frostchamber

19th Jan 2018, 21:17

Please quote me? I will apologise.

OAP

No apology sought OAP, PPRuNe is a harsh mistress and she demands a certain thickness of skin.

Your response just struck me as being unecessarily over the top, and telling me that it's a discussion of an important topic certainly struck me as condescending. You're 100% entitled to disagree with me but I'm not sure I accept that I should stop giving my views because you deem them to be incorrect. I also struggle to see how anything I said could reasonably be described as abusive, but am happy to let others be the judge of that.

Heathrow Harry

20th Jan 2018, 07:55

"I'd be interested to hear exactly which bit of the money "isn't there", given that the ships are essentially paid for."

"The hole in the Ministry of Defence's budget is apparently £1.7bn a year, plus the annual cost of up to £500m a year of the UK's Continuous at Sea Nuclear Deterrent. According to a senior government source, "without the cash this would mean cancelling significant conventional capability to affect our operational footprint and status"."

Regretfully we are faced with an enormous short-fall in resources

What do you suggest cutting going forward so we have enough cash to run the carriers and their associated air wing?

Onceapilot

20th Jan 2018, 08:17

No apology sought OAP,

Correct. And non forthcoming. :)

OAP

Onceapilot

20th Jan 2018, 08:42

Regretfully we are faced with an enormous short-fall in resources

What do you suggest cutting going forward so we have enough cash to run the carriers and their associated air wing?

Yes, the shortfall is pretty bad. It comes on top of low and/or shrinking GDP, huge political demands for other finance and a very low public perception of the need for classic Defence spending.
The problems for MOD spending are made worse by the lumping-in of peripheral "defence" spending (to account for 2%), failure to achieve any of the previous "efficiency" savings, and the required growth of cyber/terror costs in a "cost neutral" "Defence" review.
The question of "what should be cut instead then?" has been continually ducked by many who support the continued funding of the QEc capability. I predict that any response will be either, "we must push the Gov for more funding" or, "cut back unnecessary costs", ie hollow out! :=

OAP

NutLoose

20th Jan 2018, 10:13

Nothing against a carrier force, I just feel that the time for UK PLC to operate full size carriers has past. The supporting infrastructure is no longer there, defensive shield, auxiliary support fleet and the air power needed.
It all just seems a pointless exercise in overkill and is as if the Navy had fought to regain its carrier force without thinking how they would man, support and pay for them. If we still had squadrons and squadrons of aircraft to operate off them I could understand it, but to build a ship that hasn't got the aviation assets to fill it seems a total waste of money... I still think an angled deck would have also been the way to go because they instantly strangled its capability and interoperability with cross decking at the outset. Fill it with your F35 fleet and one missile and you have lost the lot..

Getting back to the. Original post, with the list of ships being shown as possible cutbacks, one feels a lot of those measures are cutbacks allowing the monies to go into these white elephants..They are and will be for years a draw on the Defence budget we can ill afford or support. I do like the 50 year life of the carriers, that will probably equate to 10 years UK, 30 years Indian or Brazillian Navy, and 10 years someone else's.

Frostchamber

20th Jan 2018, 10:50

Correct. And non forthcoming. :)

OAP

Excellent. And nor shall I desist from commenting on the basis that it's something you might prefer not to hear :). On we go...

NutLoose

20th Jan 2018, 11:00

Take a chill pill.

TheChitterneFlyer

20th Jan 2018, 11:08

The Royal United Services Institute ‘white paper’provides an interesting insight into the argument of either continuing withE-3D Sentry, at an estimated cost of £2 billion for the capability sustainment programme or, spending a similar sum to replace it in the nearer future and therefore taking the ISTAR programme beyond the Sentry E-3D 2035 out of service date.

The final paragraph of the white paper quotes: “As such, with state-on-state conflict seemingly a growing possibility and new threat technologies already posing challenges for even the modernised E-3s fleets of the USAF and FAF, the RAF should not be reluctant to consider a more unconventional solution for its ABM&S requirements over the next 20 or soyears, instead of simply patching up the E-3D Sentry fleet through a capability sustainment programme in the hope that ‘it will do’ until the US provides aNATOwide E-3 replacement”.

From a politicians viewpoint, might this be a likely ‘no brainer’?

andrewn

20th Jan 2018, 11:52

pax britanica

20th Jan 2018, 12:38

Just sell them to France- they do have serious overseas dependencies and do not mind using what forces they have without worrying about what others will say.
A complete and utter waste of money. Its not like they will provide a tech leg up to a ship building industry or anything like that and we will certainly not go to war alone again whatever happens to our various dependencies and why should we. say the yanks decided to invade Bermuda to stop it siphoning off corporate tax revenue from USA would we do anything, could we do anything -NO

Spain cuts access to Gibraltar=are we going to invade Spain , which would be attacking a NATO country-no of course not.

We need to scrap all three forces and replace by a unified structure a la Canada and focus on rapid response ground troops for use in Uk or abroad. A modest fighter defence and ground attack capabilty and Atlantic/inshore navy focused on border protection and defence of merchant vessels.

No more nuclear subs -too expensive and who are they targeted on Russia?

We have a lot of skill in making military kit and we should focus on making things thata re light manouverable - high lethality capabilityand exportable so we can earn export money from our expertise and history.

there you go fixed in ten minutes -who needs an MoD either

Heathrow Harry

20th Jan 2018, 14:03

Frostchamber

20th Jan 2018, 14:05

Buster15

20th Jan 2018, 14:14

What a shame they didn't look at where the money is actually going. QEC isn't even the biggest budget line in the Navy EP. Nor is the combined QEC and F35 the biggest item in the overall EP - in total or in in-year spend. Typhoon is still by far the biggest spend (total and in-year) and FSTA is only just below the combined QEC/F35.

That's before you start looking at the submarine budget....

Although I don't doubt it, I am a bit surprised that Typhoon is the biggest spend. I assume that this is due to new acquisition costs ? as the flying rate is not high and I believe reliably rates are good.
Would be interesting to understand the background.

NutLoose

20th Jan 2018, 14:49

Going back to the 50 yr life of the carriers, it would be interesting to see how many of our assets actually reached their designed lives, Jaguar didn't and neither did Harrier..

Frostchamber

20th Jan 2018, 15:09

Going back to the 50 yr life of the carriers, it would be interesting to see how many of our assets actually reached their designed lives, Jaguar didn't and neither did Harrier..

I'd say it varies widely. As far as ships go, Ocean is leaving on schedule and the Invincibles broadly made it to their designed 30 years. The type 23 frigates are set to soldier on (if that can be said of a ship) well past theirs. Going back in time some went quite quickly. ISTR the County class destroyers had fairly short service lives, not helped by some built in obsolescence. Tornado must have crossed the line fairly comfortably. Re Jaguar, I don't know what its design life was but deliveries started in 1973 and I think the last sqn disbanded in 2007, which doesn't seem too bad, although its withdrawal was brought forward compared to then-existing plans. Nuclear subs have tended to reach theirs, while I think the Javelin managed about 12 years on the front line.

Not_a_boffin

20th Jan 2018, 15:10

Not_a_boffin

20th Jan 2018, 15:12

Although I don't doubt it, I am a bit surprised that Typhoon is the biggest spend. I assume that this is due to new acquisition costs ? as the flying rate is not high and I believe reliably rates are good.
Would be interesting to understand the background.

Those are pure EP figures. Not ESP or operations. Just acquisition. NAO MPR 15 has the last reliable set of numbers split out.

Heathrow Harry

20th Jan 2018, 15:35

Boffin

The point is not much each accounting line item has it in it - the carriers may well be "funded" right now but when the whole edifice is running out of cash do you really think the MoD are going to leave them untouched?

It's not all (or even mainly) the carriers that are to blame - Typhoon is a much bigger item and Successor/Dreadnought looks like another horrible black hole going to happen.

Trouble is those two programmes are deemed essential whereas the carriers have always been seen as a nice-to-have. Even many in the RN are expressing dismay at the loss of other capabilities and are (rightly or wrongly) pointing the finger at the carriers.

If we were willing to spend 3-3.5% of the budget on defence we could do it and I 'd be happy that we had the additional capability they bring - but if we don't or won't cough up the extra $$$ I have real worries about cutting even further into well-established and core competences to provide for them

NutLoose

20th Jan 2018, 22:46

Frosty, I mentioned the Jag as though the in service fleet had high hours, the RAFG fleet at Halton was low having been withdrawn about the time Bruggen shut, hence the "kit" could have been swopped over cheaply, I believe the RAF held Design Authority nr the end, but I could ne wrong, The wings on the Halton Jags eventually went to Oman to increase the fatigue lives on those.

Frostchamber

20th Jan 2018, 23:50

Melchett01

21st Jan 2018, 14:06

"high lethality capability and exportable"

yes & no - unfortunately a lot of UK kit, especially ships, are very high spec and very costly compared to alternatives in the export trade. We design for top end warfare, most countries don't want or need that capability

But do we actually need that? Given HMG’s fondness for deploying us everywhere do we actually need a lot more less expensive systems? It doesn’t mean they have to be cheap and cheerful, just well thought out. Just look at what the RFN have done with their Buyan class compared to our River class vessels. We get a 30mm canon, they get LACM into a significantly smaller vessel.

Plus with the ever spiralling costs combined with a low risk appetite, we are fast approaching the point where we won’t want to deploy assets for fear of losing them.

Heathrow Harry

21st Jan 2018, 15:25

I couldn't agree more but for at least 50 years we've been in that loop.... aided & abetted by the manufacturers.

What were the last major UK weapons that "sold themselves,"??

The Hunter, the early Hawk... Centurion tank, Daring class destroyers come to mind. Since then the kit has become v complex and extremely expensive as we can only afford short runs. When there is a chance to get into a collaborative program we've often either chosen the most expensive option or gone our own way......

Look at the River class..... twice the price of the v similar Amazonas class from the same yard.....

Melchett01

21st Jan 2018, 16:40

When there is a chance to get into a collaborative program we've often either chosen the most expensive option or gone our own way......

And as good as the Typhoon is, I don’t think the Rafale or Grippen are exactly slouches. If the Swedes can rustle up decent kit on their own, maybe we should be popping over to Stockholm to see how they do it. With the size of our defence budget, there are days you look around at what dwindling capability we do have and think there must be a better way of doing this.

Lima Juliet

21st Jan 2018, 17:22

With the size of our defence budget, there are days you look around at what dwindling capability we do have and think there must be a better way of doing this. :D:D:D

I asked myself this very question on Friday...

Heathrow Harry

22nd Jan 2018, 08:15

Beeb & Press today

Army chief to call for investment to keep up with Russia

Britain's armed forces risk falling behind Russia without more investment, the head of the Army will say.

General Sir Nick Carter will say the British Army's ability to respond to threats "will be eroded if we don't keep up with our adversaries". The speech - approved by Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson - comes amid speculation of potential defence cuts (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42382002).

The warning comes after Russia practised simulated attacks across northern Europe. In the speech, which will take place at the Royal United Services Institute on Monday, Gen Carter will highlight Russia's new cyber warfare capabilities. The Russian army conducted large scale military exercises last year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-41314390/huge-russian-war-games-under-way), including simulated attacks across northern Europe, from Kaliningrad to Lithuania.

Gen Carter will also highlight the Russian army's long-range missile strike capability. While Russian forces were intervening in Syria, 26 missiles were deployed from a 1,500km (930 mile) range. He will add that Russia is building an increasingly aggressive expeditionary force, which already boasts capabilities the British Army would struggle to match. Potential military threats to the UK "are now on Europe's doorstep," Gen Carter will say.

Last year Prime Minister Theresa May said Russia had "mounted a sustained campaign of cyber espionage and disruption" against other nations.
Former Royal Navy Rear Admiral Dr Chris Parry said the British military had fallen a long way behind Russia's capabilities.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09nrs45): "I think in qualitative terms we would fare very badly, whether it was the Army, navy or air force against current Russian capabilities. I'm afraid to say the world is changing, it's moving. The Russians - and the Chinese - are developing capabilities right now with which we cannot cope today."

Analysis

By Jonathan Beale, defence correspondent
The reality is that Britain would never confront a threat like Russia on its own. That's why it is part of Nato.

But even as a key member of the alliance, the truth is that some of the UK's weapons are increasingly outdated.
While Russia's been developing new Armata tanks, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40083641) the British Army's Challenger 2 hasn't been modernised for 20 years.
Many have been mothballed as the UK focused on the counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain's ground-based air defence systems are also becoming increasingly obsolete and no match for Russia.

Still, the likelihood of any direct military confrontation with Russia seems extremely remote. True, the US National Defence Strategy recently highlighted the risks of a more assertive Russia and China. But for now, the concern is more about those countries using cyber and misinformation to disrupt life in the west.
General Carter's intervention is more driven by fears of further deep cuts to the UK's armed forces. The Ministry of Defence has a black hole in its budget.

It is rare for a military chief to make such an obvious and public appeal for more cash.
But he's doing it under the orders of the Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson. He has sent his generals over the top to put pressure on the chancellor.
In December Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach said the UK should prioritise protecting undersea cables from the Kremlin, as disruption could be "potentially catastrophic" to the economy.

The speech comes as national security adviser Mark Sedwill conducts a review of the UK's security capabilities.
There are concerns in the armed forces that the review will prioritise counter-cyber attacks and terrorism, rather than major defence.

Last week Conservative MP Julian Lewis, chairman of the Commons defence select committee, posed an urgent question in the Commons after speculation that there were plans to cut the UK military by 14,000 service personnel, nine warships and 100 helicopters. Mr Williamson said "hard work" is taking place to give the armed forces the "right resources". Some MPs have called to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP - it is currently at 2%, in line with the guideline for Nato members.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-42724320)

Not_a_boffin

22nd Jan 2018, 08:20

It's not all (or even mainly) the carriers that are to blame - Typhoon is a much bigger item and Successor/Dreadnought looks like another horrible black hole going to happen.

Trouble is those two programmes are deemed essential whereas the carriers have always been seen as a nice-to-have. Even many in the RN are expressing dismay at the loss of other capabilities and are (rightly or wrongly) pointing the finger at the carriers.

Depends on your PoV as to what is essential and what is nice to have. See earlier on minimum national defence vs alliance contribution. While I would also say that Typhoon and CASD are essential, there are a lot of other things that (IMO) are not because they are well provided for elsewhere in the NATO alliance.

However, that should not obscure the simple fact that 2%GDP is a minimum. If we want to do more than minimum national defence then we need to budget accordingly.

Heathrow Harry

22nd Jan 2018, 08:40

Jabba_TG12

22nd Jan 2018, 09:25

Or maybe it's just inaccurate nonsense as everything else the Times has had to say about defence has been...

Mmm. History hasnt been particularly kind to your dismissive handwaving and wringing in the recent past, has it Pr00ne?:suspect:

Jabba_TG12

22nd Jan 2018, 09:29

Amusing how many moans likely coming from brexiteers whose vote to leave was directly responsible for triggering this crisis.

I dont agree with Heathrow Harry very often, but he's absolutely right in this case. This has been brewing for a damn sight longer than the last 2 years. Probably if anything, the best part of a decade and a half of pitiful senior leadership, not to mention woeful political strategy. Things have been going to rats**t since the Jock Stirrup days as CAS, let alone CDS, say nothing of that buffoon West in dark blue.

Its not just the services though, its the entire public service infrastructure and apparatus and for that matter, ethos. Leadership at any level is woefully lacking.

Jabba_TG12

22nd Jan 2018, 10:18

Mebbe not now that the country is a broken reed, but once upon a time....
https://www.targetmap.com/ThumbnailsReports/24487_THUMB_IPAD.jpg

Old habits die hard, as the Iraqis and others are endlessly reminded.

Indeed once upon a time. Long long ago in a Galaxy far far away. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Not exactly relevant to the here and now unless there is a chip on someone's shoulder to make them so salty....:E

Roland Pulfrew

22nd Jan 2018, 10:32

We've taken a NATO "aspiration" which includes countries who have never had a significant armed forces or out of area history (Denmark, NL, Belgium etc) and turned it into a hard & fast rule that is ruining our defences

Bit harsh on the DanBat and their heavy armour that were at Camp Bastion for many years; the Dutch F-16s that were in Afghanistan and the Belgian F-16s that were in Syria/Iraq!!

Heathrow Harry

22nd Jan 2018, 10:33

Missed off France - we used to hold that as well at one point.........

and Cyprus and the Bahamas

aw ditor

22nd Jan 2018, 11:10

Jabba

Whats the map projection? Canada looks a bit too big'. Expert view from a Nav.?

AD'

NutLoose

22nd Jan 2018, 11:58

Old World conquests on a new World map, I don't think South Korea existed when we were sailing around ruling the world... Just think what we might have had if we hadn't poured all that money into foreign countries building their infrastructure.

Heathrow Harry

22nd Jan 2018, 12:16

Map looks like a Mercator projection to me

and we also held part of Cameroon ..........

PDR1

22nd Jan 2018, 12:30

and we also held part of Cameroon ..........

True, but we quickly let go of it when he stood down after the referendum.

PDR

PDR1

22nd Jan 2018, 12:36

Missed off France - we used to hold that as well at one point.........

Used to? Poitou, Anjou and Acquitaine are still sovereign british territory as far as I am concerned.

Reminds me of the apocryphal report of the conversation when GWB's team made enquiries about the cost of acquiring the freehold of the US Embassy in london from the Duke of Westminster. The Duke responded that the freehold need not be at all expensive - in favct he would be prepared to exchange it for the simple return of one of his family possessions.

"Oh, which one?" the US ambassador asked

"Virginia" was the reply...

PDR

Wander00

22nd Jan 2018, 13:01

PDR -that's good, Brexit won't affect me as I am still in England ....doh.....

chopper2004

22nd Jan 2018, 17:17

My father has a saying one has to speculate to accumulate :)

Army chief to call for investment to keep up with Russia - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42770208?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook)

Running a country is not a lot different to running a corporation....re investment.

Will anyone like to put their hands in their (deep) pockets and help out the CGS? :(:ok::mad: thus seeing their returns in a few years :)

Referring to my thread I started on Russia developing /constructing their LHD - I have just been reading about the KA-52K Alligator shipboard trials / embarkment in the receent Russian Helicopters Magazine.

cheers

Melchett01

22nd Jan 2018, 18:06

Boffin - I came to the conclusion several years ago that 2% just isn't enough for the UK

We've taken a NATO "aspiration" which includes countries who have never had a significant armed forces or out of area history (Denmark, NL, Belgium etc) and turned it into a hard & fast rule that is ruining our defences

Any historic view would suggest 3 or even 3.5% is required - and that's without adding in the SSBN

Alternatively, what if 2% is sufficient but we just aren’t spending 2% on capability and personnel? i.e. is what we are seeing now the result of fudging 2% through slight of hand and accounting practices so sharp Carillion would think twice and this is simply the net result of masking underinvestment through politics?

Onceapilot

22nd Jan 2018, 18:21

The 2% is a political figure, conjured-up to make some (poorly) defined NATO spending statement. What if, we needed 10% to survive? Or 50%? :ooh:
The things that matter are, that the defence spending is sufficient to provide the reliable defence of the nation. Therefore, the definition of the level of spending depends on the need. That is what the Gov should be doing, not fudging the spending, define the need, you Pollies!:rolleyes:

OAP

NutLoose

23rd Jan 2018, 07:44

I did find his speech quite good, though rapid and driving everywhere did seem to be at odds with each other, it's all ok if your future conflict is in a handy close at hand landmass, but a road trip to Afghanistan would have been neither rapid nor practical, your other problem is getting agreement from every other country on route to allow your Army to pass through.
The rapid deployment also seems to falter if the helicopter force is chopped as the original post suggested, you cannot rapidly move equipment, supply's and manpower around a battlefield without them.
I do wonder how he is going to get this rapid deployment to the likes of an incursion into say Latvia if they take out bridges, rail and road infrastructure. The road from Kuwait back to Iraq comes to mind.
His comments about how well Germany did this during WW2 got me thinking, Germany's early success with blitzkrieg had a different scenario, Germany was attacking, therefore the fleeing populace was moving away from you making rapid advancement possible, when you are moving to defend surely you are bogged down by the road network being blocked by those fleeing towards you.

roving

23rd Jan 2018, 07:54

Haraka

23rd Jan 2018, 10:12

I had the opportunity to chat with Keith Speed some years later whilst he was on a visit. He "resigned" of course. "Basically, there was nothing else that I could do."
Then he gently chuckled.

Jabba_TG12

23rd Jan 2018, 11:50

Sir Keith Speed, who has died aged 83, was Margaret Thatcher’s minister for the Royal Navy until he was sacked in 1981 after protesting against cuts to the service, months before Argentina invaded the Falklands.

Sir Keith Speed, former Navy minister ? obituary (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2018/01/22/sir-keith-speed-former-navy-minister-obituary/)

Therein lies the difference. Precious few, if any at all reach the dizzy heights of star officer rank and are then prepared to watch the seat in the HoL slide away into the mist on such a tedious and outdated concept such as honour.

Plainly, there is a price that can be put on honour and integrity these days. £300 a day about covers it.

pr00ne

23rd Jan 2018, 13:09

Jabba TG12,

What?

Show me where the Times has ever been right and me wrong.

pr00ne

23rd Jan 2018, 13:15

Cazalet33,

If you define a country's "greatness" by the amount of foreign territory that is conquers and colonises may I suggest that you are living in the wrong century?

To call the UK a "broken reed" of a country is totally ignoring the influence, affect and world wide interests that the UK has in 2018. And that doesn't have to mean owing and occupying other people's countries either.

Jabba_TG12

23rd Jan 2018, 14:19

Jabba TG12,

What?

Show me where the Times has ever been right and me wrong.

Its got nothing to do with that erstwhile publication, Pr00ne. Its more the culture you've become part of, that you've no doubt found yourself in and become assimilated to over the years that I've observed your posts.

Just because officially nothing can be publicly admitted to as wrong, or suspect, or could be done better, its not a case of all in the garden being rosy all the time because the culture of being on message 24/7/365 says so.

If you'll pardon my directness, you come across like an MOD Press Officer or perhaps a little less kindly, a 1980's Zampoliti . "Nothing to see here, move along, less chattering at the back, stop whinging, no questioning the chain of command..."

You're not a Common Purpose Graduate by any chance, are you? :E

To address the matter of The Times... given the pitiful state of journalism these days, articles such as this are leaked deliberately from within, as a number of posters have alluded, as a "softening up" exercise, to take the temperature of the water as to what is or is not considered a potential step too far. Organs such as The Times merely embroider what they have been leaked and use that to wring as much revenue from Outraged Of Tunbridge Wells on a daily basis as possible. No smoke without fire, as they say.

Thats not to say that all three of these eventualities may or will come to pass. But combinations of them almost certainly will, as has been openly discussed here. To dismiss the whole lot as merely a pile of journalistic froth is somewhat disingenuous.

pr00ne

23rd Jan 2018, 14:41

Jabba TG12,

Not part of ANY culture. I'm not just as down beat and glass always half empty as most of the types on here.

I also don't constantly hark back to when I was in claiming that it was better then and that that was when we had a REAL Air Force!

When I joined there were similar types knocking around then all dribbling on about "back in my day" and when we had troopships, sand flies, ricketts and constipation!

I also don't classify the health and prosperity of my country by how many fast jet squadrons, warships and overseas bases it has. Sorry!

I have no message to be "on" 24/7 365.

As to not questioning the chain of command...

Onceapilot

23rd Jan 2018, 17:49

So, the "Modernising Defence Programme" will be done by MOD after all!
The BBC report that Gavin Williamson has persuaded the PM to allow him to conduct the review. Typical May, kick the ball down the road and see if things resolve themselves. Not exactly dynamic leadership.

OAP

Frostchamber

25th Jan 2018, 08:17

A good thing if it insulates defence spending from being robbed to pay for other security spending in the current "fiscally neutral" review. But presumably unhelpful if the Chancellor sees it the same way as the press - ie where any increase in defence funding would be a victory for Williamson and a defeat for him.

And of course Spreadsheet Phil knows the MoD better than most and will have a good idea of just how efficient or otherwise it is. On the positive side, with defence being unusually high on many Tory mps' list of concerns, May won't want to see a Williamson resignation so he may have a certain amount of leverage there. Unsatisfactory fudge may be the most likely outcome, with high profile items saved and continued trimming elsewhere in what they hope will be an under-the-radar sort of way.

TorqueOfTheDevil

25th Jan 2018, 10:52

[QUOTE]Unsatisfactory fudge may be the most likely outcome[QUOTE]

Isn't it always?

Not_a_boffin

25th Jan 2018, 12:39

SofS states in House that Modernising Defence review need not be fiscally neutral.

A long way from anything concrete, but at least a start - although the cynic in me wonders how much money HMT will take away!

unmanned_droid

25th Jan 2018, 14:57

Yes suitably vague!

Frostchamber

25th Jan 2018, 17:44

There is the potential for funding to go up, which is good, but at the same time the Chancellor will continue to play hardball on the need for efficiencies (probably rightly) and there also seems to be a clear expectation of some rebalancing - augmenting capacity is some areas while reducing it on others. This quote from the SoS statement makes that explicit:

"While the major elements of our plans for Joint Force 2025 remain the right ones, in order to secure competitive advantage over our potential adversaries we need to ensure that we can move quickly to strengthen further our capabilities in priority areas and reduce the resources we devote elsewhere."

So we have the potential for "winners and losers", and plenty of ways to skin this particular cat - difficult to know where that might lead. Fortunately the statement also acknowledged the need to retain a need to act in isolation where necessary, even though we'll normally act in concert with others.

NutLoose

25th Jan 2018, 18:15

There's a potential for it to go down too!

My bet, knowing the loathsome creatures inhabiting Westminster, is they will announce extra spending on xyz fleet / capability to be funded from the savings made by chopping xyz and abc fleets and flogging them off, while cutting manpower to free up more funding.

Onceapilot

25th Jan 2018, 18:20

Just seen an unspeakably weak anti-UK nuke promo by Peter Hitchens on the beeb. In the interests of bias and balance, I trust that the BBC will feature an informed piece on the argument against UK IND? This would be the very least they could do, despite the no-brainer of the UK's effective IND capability. :ok::ok::ok:

OAP

Melchett01

25th Jan 2018, 18:24

To be honest, I’m less interested in the funding being currently discussed (we all know what the eventual outcome will be - something less than helpful spun to make it look like a win ... like saying you’ve scored 3 goals but neglecting to mention 2 of them were own goals) and more interested in the politics and manoeuvring accompanying the statements.

We’ve seen what happens when someone goes off message, just look at the cross-Govt clamouring over Boris’ recent NHS intervention. So to have SoS authorising CGS to make some fairly bold statements with potential political undertones / implications in public and neither of them being slapped down is interesting. It suggests a growing link between SoS and the PM and senior elements of the Govt and does it point to CGS as the next CDS? Why was it that CGS was wheeled out and not any of the others?

The first shouldn’t be a shock given the SoS and PM’s history but could be a useful card to have in the hand. As for the second point, the money is on Messenger as next CDS (the RN will hate that), and this clearly represents CGS on manoeuvres; but officially sanctioned manoeuvres in the run up to the announcement on the next CDS. And very active manoeuvres at that when compared to CAS who appears to either being very canny or just has very little to say. Interesting. What does a strengthened SoS and an Army CDS bring for us?

Onceapilot

25th Jan 2018, 18:36

What does a strengthened SoS and an Army CDS bring for us?

Nothing, if there is a General Election in the next couple of years! :uhoh:

OAP

taxydual

25th Jan 2018, 19:12

Stand down everybody.

Trump has just told May (in a press meet at Davos) that if the UK is threatened, the US Armed Forces will wade in.

That'll save May a few billion. Let the Spam's defend us!!

Chinny Crewman

25th Jan 2018, 20:34

Just seen an unspeakably weak anti-UK nuke promo by Peter Hitchens on the beeb

OAP

I thought it was quite good actually. In essence we are all bleating that we have insufficient cash to defend the country however we insist on spending £B on retaining the ability to obliterate several cities at a moments notice to deter others from obliterating ours. There must be a cheaper way of maintaining membership of the nuclear club? As Hitchens says, some nuclear tipped cruise missiles would suffice?
http://https://twitter.com/clarkemicah/status/956576109109358592

Onceapilot

25th Jan 2018, 21:39

CC. Err, No! "We" are not all bleating and, nuclear warheads on cruise missiles do not suffice. Why would we wish to have a less effective deterrent defence that could kill millions of people but not be effective? :oh:
Don't be misled by people like PH.

OAP

Chinny Crewman

26th Jan 2018, 06:50

"We" are not all bleating and

There is currently a high profile campaign being waged by the chiefs, some backbench MPs and sections of the press for more money. There has been little effort to justify the request beyond CGS recent warnings about the Russians. That sounds like bleating to me.
Instead of dismissing Hitchens or anyone else who questions these expensive vanity projects maybe we should justify them?
To answer your question I would accept a less effective deterrent than the current Trident system because it would be effective and cheaper. Defence could then spend the savings on other conventional forces.

NutLoose

26th Jan 2018, 07:10

It's all like a Mars Bar, you can say your spending on the product as a whole is increasing because you are making the bar smaller but charging the same.

Same with the NHS you can say spending has increased on the rest of it, because the budget is the same but you have chopped xyz thousand beds. You push the increase and bury the unsavoury facts.

Jimlad1

26th Jan 2018, 08:09

The cruise missile warheads that dont exist, aren't in service and would need to be developed from scratch? How will going it alone on a reduced capability project that will likely cost more than Trident by the time extra boats are added etc, be more sensible than the hugely cost effective trident project?

Onceapilot

26th Jan 2018, 08:36

QUOTE from BBC this morning
"Mr Williamson, who became defence secretary last November, said Russia had been researching these types of connections and would be willing to take action "any other nation would see as completely unacceptable".

He told the paper: "The plan for the Russians won't be for landing craft to appear in the South Bay in Scarborough, and off Brighton beach.

"They are going to be thinking, 'how can we just cause so much pain to Britain?

"Damage its economy, rip its infrastructure apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths, but actually have an element of creating total chaos within the country." :rolleyes:

Good God! Someone has gone and told the baby SoS the contents of the first lecture at defence college! :oh:
Are we all going to be bombarded with this basic stuff as Gavin reads his way through the background lectures for junior? I suppose he will have a hissy fit when he gets to the casualty estimates for Nuke exchanges and Germ/Bio! :eek:

OAP

Onceapilot

26th Jan 2018, 08:51

To answer your question I would accept a less effective deterrent than the current Trident system because it would be effective and cheaper.

Sorry old chap, a Nuke deterrent is either effective or ineffective. A "less effective deterrent than Trident" would be ineffective.
Trident is the best VFM effective deterrent. :D

OAP

PDR1

26th Jan 2018, 09:14

We've had this discussion before

Roland Pulfrew

26th Jan 2018, 09:19

. Defence could then spend the savings on other conventional forces.

If you think Defence would be allowed to keep the savings, you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Any savings (actually cuts) would be grabbed by the Treasury to spend on the black hole that is the NHS, because, apparently, the great British public want unlimited resource for the 'free' NHS. And its a vote winner.

PDR1

26th Jan 2018, 09:43

There is an irony here. When the UK first decided to become a nuclear nation (which people tend to forget was the act of the Labour government [mainly driven by Nye Bevan] in 1952 and was actually opposed by the Tories of the day) one of the principle motivations was to save money. At the time it was belived that the whole of western europe faced a serious threat from Soviet expansionism (which some suggest was later shown to be real by the building of the Berlin Wall and the action in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in the 60s), and the development & deployment of nuclear deterents was deemed toi be substantially cheaper than maintaining and equipping the size & scope of conventional forces which would otherwise be needed to assure the security of western europe. The Force-Multiplier effect of the strategic and tactical nuclear weapons allowed for a much cheaper defence budget.

After the cold war ended we went through a period where the soviet threat was certainly less credible, but with the rise of the post-glasnost despots (principally Putin) it is once more becoming credible (as evidenced by the summary annexation of the Crimea). So at the very time when we NEED a force balance we should surelyt not be looking to replace nuclear deterents with what could only ever be a LESSER military effect in conventional forces, because there is no way the UK could afford to create a force-match in convenetional forces. We couldn;'t even dream of returning the RAF to 1,000 front-line aircraft and the RN to 100 capital ships (including five carriers, over 20 SSNs, heavier cruisers or "destroyers on steroids"), never mind the standing army of at least half a million and a mechanised infantry supported by 2,000 main battle tanks. Our available spondulicks simply won't stretch to such extravagance, but we *can* afford the cheaper option (nukes).

Seemples.

PDR

unmanned_droid

26th Jan 2018, 09:56

I suspect that, really, making cuts to the RAF in its centenary year is seen as bad PR for May. That's the only reason things have been pushed to the right.

Onceapilot

26th Jan 2018, 10:06

Excellent Ytube link PDR! :ok:

OAP

Chinny Crewman

26th Jan 2018, 10:20

Sorry old chap, a Nuke deterrent is either effective or ineffective. A "less effective deterrent than Trident" would be ineffective.
Trident is the best VFM effective deterrent. :D

OAP

Poor choice of word on my part old boy. I would accept a nuclear deterrent that enabled the delivery of a warhead by whatever means. I do not think it has to be a system that involves maintaining multiple warheads on multiple missiles.
Regarding the cruise missile option, if this is not feasible then I'm sure we could develop another delivery system. We could use the money we are spending developing successor. I'm sure even with the MoDs track record there would be savings and the RN wouldn't have to man the submarines so freeing up manpower.

Chinny Crewman

26th Jan 2018, 10:27

If you think Defence would be allowed to keep the savings, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Roland you may be right however I suspect defence is going to get shafted (again) whatever happens. Hopefully the chiefs can at least get people talking and thinking about capabilities, cuts and consequences?

Onceapilot

26th Jan 2018, 10:44

Poor choice of word on my part old boy. I would accept a nuclear deterrent that enabled the delivery of a warhead by whatever means. I do not think it has to be a system that involves maintaining multiple warheads on multiple missiles.
Regarding the cruise missile option, if this is not feasible then I'm sure we could develop another delivery system.

Two thoughts Chinny: It might not be in the interests of the UK IND to generally slag off the Trident capability.
Secondly, it is not too difficult to research the detail of UK IND options, capabilities, weaknesses and strengths. ;)

OAP

Chinny Crewman

26th Jan 2018, 11:04

Two thoughts Chinny: It might not be in the interests of the UK IND to generally slag off the Trident capability.
Secondly, it is not too difficult to research the detail of UK IND options, capabilities, weaknesses and strengths. ;)

OAP

Not sure where you've got the 'slag off' idea from? Questioning the necessity given the apparent lack of funds and impending cuts isn't slagging off.
Regarding research, yes I am aware of how to research options. My point regarding cruise missiles was aimed more at another contributor who said the capability doesn't exist and would need to be developed.

Brian 48nav

26th Jan 2018, 14:26

We didn't have a Labour Government in 1952 - some fact checking needed!

Heathrow Harry

26th Jan 2018, 15:45

It was still Labour who took the decision on an independent A bomb

PDR1

26th Jan 2018, 16:41

Indeed - I mistakenly cited the date on which the UK brcame nuclear-capable. The decision itself was taken in 1948.

PDR

Onceapilot

26th Jan 2018, 19:17

QUOTE BBC:

"Russia mocks Gavin Williamson's attack warning" :D

Not surprising but.....
I would suggest that if he knew what he was doing, this would not be the headline. :=

OAP

Stuff

26th Jan 2018, 22:19

I would suggest that if he knew what he was doing, this would not be the headline. :=

What headline were you expecting?

Surely Russia can be expected to mock any criticism as 'fake news'. After all they have never done anything bad to anyone, ever, especially the Crimea.

Brian 48nav

27th Jan 2018, 08:55

Thanks for that.

Onceapilot

27th Jan 2018, 08:55

Surely Russia can be expected to mock any criticism as 'fake news'. After all they have never done anything bad to anyone, ever, especially the Crimea.

Hi Stuff. Here is a quote of Gavin Williamson to the DT reported by the BBC:

"The plan for the Russians won't be for landing craft to appear in the South Bay in Scarborough, and off Brighton beach.

"They are going to be thinking, 'how can we just cause so much pain to Britain?

"Damage its economy, rip its infrastructure apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths, but actually have an element of creating total chaos within the country."

Of course, the intent he has is to raise concern in the British public, due to his desire to increase UK defence spending. However, the tone and use of words in the piece make, what could be a real present threat, into a fantasy. It superficially reads as if, the Russians are actually (x2!) doing this now. What could be a measured statement becomes absurd, allowing the Russian Defence representative to make it a joke and deny that they are doing this. So, by making an alarmist, poorly thought-out statement, the UK Defence Sec has made a fool of us and, more importantly, the question of the Russian State threat to the UK is devalued.
So, what will the Defence Sec tell the British public next? :\

OAP

Frostchamber

27th Jan 2018, 10:48

Hi Stuff. Here is a quote of Gavin Williamson to the DT reported by the BBC:

"The plan for the Russians won't be for landing craft to appear in the South Bay in Scarborough, and off Brighton beach.

"They are going to be thinking, 'how can we just cause so much pain to Britain?

"Damage its economy, rip its infrastructure apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths, but actually have an element of creating total chaos within the country."

Of course, the intent he has is to raise concern in the British public, due to his desire to increase UK defence spending. However, the tone and use of words in the piece make, what could be a real present threat, into a fantasy. It superficially reads as if, the Russians are actually (x2!) doing this now. What could be a measured statement becomes absurd, allowing the Russian Defence representative to make it a joke and deny that they are doing this. So, by making an alarmist, poorly thought-out statement, the UK Defence Sec has made a fool of us and, more importantly, the question of the Russian State threat to the UK is devalued.
So, what will the Defence Sec tell the British public next? :\

OAP

Entirely agree. Whatever happened to "speak softly and carry a big stick"? His predecessor started the trend eg with cringy statements about how the Russians would envy our carrier, and he has taken it further. The only rationale I can think of is that he may be taking a gamble that an overtly populist line (compare the photo shoot with the "saved" dog while waving a copy of the Sun) will pay dividends politically. And so far, it has to be said, his political calculations have served him well.

Similary, many of us have fretted that defence doesn't sit higher in public consciousness. Maybe this sort of thing is what it takes. I just wish it didn't have to be quite so toe-curling in tone.

A_Van

27th Jan 2018, 11:27

IMHO:
No great brain work is needed to mock each other or share one's nightmares with the public. All the politicians on all sides (Russia included) whose only aim is to escalate the tension are cheap populists or short-sighted idiots (or both).

Nothing wrong in the attempts to raise the (defence) budget for those in charge. Would be strange to see/hear the opposite from them. However, there are many less paranoic arguments to be emphasized, especially in UK. It does not produce aircraft for some decades already (Eurofighter with 4 "parents" does not count), no serious SAMs complexes, just a few N-subs with US missiles (with only one really on-duty) etc, etc.

BTW in Russia, Britain has a very good image on average among common folks. Great British rock music, Great British football league, great history, etc. For those elder generations who were "overloaded" with higher education in "good old times" some other points can be added such as Great industrial revolution (started there), Great British classic literature, geographical discoveries/explorations and so on and so forth.

What's the use of ruining this image?

Heathrow Harry

27th Jan 2018, 12:11

"a few N-subs with US missiles (with only one really on-duty) et"

whereas Russia has 13 SSBN's but probably only 2 at sea at one time..................

and US missiles work whereas lets just say Russian ones have a somewhat chequered record in tests over the last few years..............................

Al-bert

27th Jan 2018, 12:39

IMHO:
No great brain work is needed to mock each other or share one's nightmares with the public. All the politicians on all sides (Russia included) whose only aim is to escalate the tension are cheap populists or short-sighted idiots (or both).

What's the use of ruining this image?

I couldn't agree more A_Van! As one who's father served on HMS Onslow at the Battle of the Barents Sea I despair at our current crop of crass politicians. On balance I rather prefer Putin to our current lot. :*

A_Van

27th Jan 2018, 14:05

.... On balance I rather prefer Putin to our current lot. :*

Oh, no. You would feel very sorry for the economy.

BroomstickPilot

27th Jan 2018, 16:20

Hi Guys,

I wish to respond to comments made on the first page of this thread.
I had hoped to comment earlier, using quotes from one of the financial newsletters I subscribe to, which I believed was still on my system. However, I have been unable to find the quote I wanted so I am going to have to quote, as best I can, from other sources and from memory. I’m not a finance professional, just a small-time, civvy, personal investor, but I’ll do my best.

Alber Ratman had commented: Cut , cut , cut... Got sod all to do with Beagles favourite subject, but a strong defence is only possible with a strong economy.. That Gentlemen is the truth and our economy is a lot weaker that many on here think it really is.

Melchett01 had commented: Sixth largest economy in the world and sixth/fifth (or there abouts on both counts) largest defence budget even accounting for a somewhat anaemic economy. Given that, why can we not afford to defend the country properly? Or would it be more accurate to ask why do politicians choose not to defend the country properly?

O.K. Here goes with my best attempt to explain. At the end of the financial year ending March 2017, UK government gross debt was £1.72 trillion, equivalent to 88.0% of GDP – and mounting! We're still borrowing year on year. Bear in mind that this is just the ‘on-balance sheet’ public indebtedness.

If you then include the ‘off-balance sheet’ items, such as: -
1. public sector pensions, (apparently the largest item) some of which have no investment fund and are paid directly out of revenue; (i.e. teachers, fire brigade, police, etc.), and black holes in the funds of the remainder resulting from low interest rates.
2. Nuclear decommissioning,
3. Hinkley Point,
4. PFI contracts; (hospitals etc.),
5. Government’s stakes in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group.

Then according to an article in the Daily Telegraph these could amount to a further £4.84 trillion. This would make the total government indebtedness amount to £6.56 trillion. (A trillion is a thousand billion).

According to ‘Full Fact’ each year the government pays £33 billion in interest on its debts.

If to the above is added total private household debt, which in 2017 was 1.63trillion, this makes the total £8.19 trillion Grand Total.

In short, the nation is in a similar position to Carillion just before it went bust. We are like a very big firm that is insolvent and teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. We are able to function on a day to day basis, but if all our creditors demanded their money back simultaneously, we would be BUST and into an Argentine style sovereign default.

That's why we can't afford proper defences but only something that looks like defences but in truth is only a sorry shadow of what it is supposed to be. Please don't ask me how this will end.

Best regards,

BP.

Just This Once...

27th Jan 2018, 19:23

...but a strong defence is only possible with a strong economy.

It's a great line but when you think about it it really is utter nonsense.

The requirement for strong defence should be independent of the economy. International threats, by their very nature, are independent of any particular nation's economic cycle.

Here in the UK the true defence spend is vanishingly small. Even if it were doubled it would still be a very small fraction of the overall economy.

PDR1

27th Jan 2018, 20:30

Why have you listed "government stakes in RBS and Lloyds" on the liabilities side? These are assets - they may prove over time to be poor investments, but they are not debts in the sense you imply. The comparison to Carillion fails because nation states are not commercial ventures. To understand this you need to consider who that national debt is actually owed *to*.

Think that one through and you will be on the path to enlightenment...

PDR

Heathrow Harry

28th Jan 2018, 07:30

Sovereign Nations accounts are different to those of a business or a household

But THE FIRST duty of any Govt is to keep it's people safe and to rule a lawful society

Quite what that means is up to the politicians ....... choices have to be made

Heathrow Harry

28th Jan 2018, 09:37

Onceapilot

28th Jan 2018, 10:56

"So, what will the Defence Sec tell the British public next?"
I posed this question. No replies? However, today I see that things are going on behind the scenes. Is Gavin Williamson doing any good for Defence? I think possibly not and I expect he will now go deep and silent for a while. However, if he is deeply wounded, standby for fireworks!:eek:

OAP

Heathrow Harry

28th Jan 2018, 11:56

We've had 5 different ones in 8 years so I guess another wouldn't make much difference

Nearly as bad as UKIP TBH

Buster15

28th Jan 2018, 13:54

Hi Guys,

I wish to respond to comments made on the first page of this thread.
I had hoped to comment earlier, using quotes from one of the financial newsletters I subscribe to, which I believed was still on my system. However, I have been unable to find the quote I wanted so I am going to have to quote, as best I can, from other sources and from memory. I’m not a finance professional, just a small-time, civvy, personal investor, but I’ll do my best.

Alber Ratman had commented: Cut , cut , cut... Got sod all to do with Beagles favourite subject, but a strong defence is only possible with a strong economy.. That Gentlemen is the truth and our economy is a lot weaker that many on here think it really is.

Melchett01 had commented: Sixth largest economy in the world and sixth/fifth (or there abouts on both counts) largest defence budget even accounting for a somewhat anaemic economy. Given that, why can we not afford to defend the country properly? Or would it be more accurate to ask why do politicians choose not to defend the country properly?

O.K. Here goes with my best attempt to explain. At the end of the financial year ending March 2017, UK government gross debt was £1.72 trillion, equivalent to 88.0% of GDP – and mounting! We're still borrowing year on year. Bear in mind that this is just the ‘on-balance sheet’ public indebtedness.

If you then include the ‘off-balance sheet’ items, such as: -
1. public sector pensions, (apparently the largest item) some of which have no investment fund and are paid directly out of revenue; (i.e. teachers, fire brigade, police, etc.), and black holes in the funds of the remainder resulting from low interest rates.
2. Nuclear decommissioning,
3. Hinkley Point,
4. PFI contracts; (hospitals etc.),
5. Government’s stakes in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group.

That's why we can't afford proper defences but only something that looks like defences but in truth is only a sorry shadow of what it is supposed to be. Please don't ask me how this will end.

Best regards,

BP.

While your analysis seems sound, it solely considers the country finances.
In the event of this country being attacked or needing to utilise most all of its military assets in order to prevent such an attack, you can be sure that massive funds would be allocated to our defences. Quite probably these would dwarf the 'so called' 2% fefence expenditure. It is like a home owner not paying for house insurance. They may be lucky but in the event of a major problem, it is likely that refurbishment costs would dwarf the insurance cost.
And THAT is precisely what governments do. But in this case it is not just a house but a country with over 65 million people...

Frostchamber

28th Jan 2018, 15:46

I see the Defence Secretary is now accused of "leaking intelligence" according to today's Sunday Times... no doubt the Treasury getting their knife in in retaliation...............

I'm really getting sick of this bunch of third raters.................

It's been confirmed by MoD and the Intelligence Services that he leaked precisely nothing. The are however some in the party that clearly don't like him, and this briefing against him would appear to reflect that.

Chinny Crewman

28th Jan 2018, 18:44

While your analysis seems sound...

It’s not sound it’s nonsense.

‘A strong defence is only possible with a strong economy’, this is the latest Conservative tag line to answer any problem. What constitutes a strong economy? What is a strong defence? It is a meaningless soundbite.

‘Our economy is a lot weaker than many on here think it is’, various international organisations rate the UK economy as the 5/6 largest in the world. Despite current political turmoil we are still growing. Politicians, technocrats, financiers and most people acknowledge that the UK economy is in pretty good shape albeit with some problems.

‘Would it be more accurate to ask why do politicians choose not to defend the country properly?’ Indeed but the question could also be why does the military squander such a large budget and fail to deliver what it promises?

Broomsticks comments on debt to GDP are statistically accurate but incomplete. As PDR says who owns that debt and how/when can they call it in? Due to quantative easing the BoE currently holds 25% of it. The 88% figure sounds awful until you consider in the early 1950s our ratio was above 200% and defence spending over 5% of GDP for the entire decade. For perspective Japans current debt to GDP ratio 240%, France 96, Spain 99, Italy 132, you get the idea.

In short the UKs finances are nothing like Carillion or any other private company, we are not teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and our creditors can not just demand their money back.

‘Proper defences’ whatever that means? Defence capabilities are a matter for government on the advice of the chiefs. Just what that advice should be is something we will never agree on this forum.

Broomsticks post was ill informed tripe.

Easy Street

28th Jan 2018, 19:43

‘A strong defence is only possible with a strong economy’

Without breaking out the history books to verify, my instinct is that war has been more likely to occur at times of national, regional or global economic weakness. Hence my further instinct that the phrase above is not just political BS, it’s dead wrong. Our defence has probably never been stronger than when our economy has been in the most trouble; it’s just that war has a way of focussing the electorate’s mind.

A better phrase would be ‘a strong defence is only possible if the the people are prepared to pay for it’. Even that doesn’t tell the story in our case, as despite the whingeing we do have a large defence budget by global standards!

Jumping_Jack

29th Jan 2018, 14:10

MOD SPOKESMAN

'Deny everything Baldrick!'

Lyneham Lad

29th Jan 2018, 17:21

Article inThe Guardian today (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/29/how-uk-armed-forces-look-scratch-military-spending-army-navy-airforce?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Opinion+UK+connected&utm_term=262198&subid=10370078&CMP=ema_opinionconnectuk).

Snip:-
The argument over the UK’s defence budget and the shape of the armed forces has been raging for a while but the debate has reached boiling point this month. Newly appointed secretary of state for defence, Gavin Williamson, and the chief of the general staff, General Sir Nicholas Carter, have been arguing for an increase in spending to meet a £20bn funding shortfall and stave off cuts to key capabilities and personnel numbers. But what if we ignore that reality for a moment and imagine that the UK were buying a fully formed military off the shelf. What would that look like and how much would change?

Health warning - might cause raised blood pressure! :ooh: :suspect: