Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5% of GDP would be another £40bn a year. Where on earth are you going to get that sort of money from? More importantly...as Pr00ne keeps asking "what are we getting for the £40bn we already spend?" As a taxpayer you can be certain that I'm not about to give another penny willingly to the organisation that I saw waste so much that it was given over the 30 years I was watching!
I find looking at where the "£40Bn" actually goes is an interesting exercise.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...79994/2013.pdf
Table 1.03.03 on page 10 is particularly illuminating. What it says is that :
Of the £43.7Bn spent in 2012/2013 -
£12Bn (27%) went on pay and associated NI/pension costs, with a service / civvy split of (22%/5%)
£4.5Bn (11%) went on infrastructure costs (energy, phone/IT, property mgmt contracts etc)
£5.6Bn (13%) went on equipment support (aircraft support contracts, ship refits, vehicle repairs etc)
£2.3Bn (5%) went on consumables (fuel, food, ammo, clothing etc)
£4.8Bn (11%) went on buying new kit (Typhoon, Airseeker, QEC, Astute, Wildcat etc)
£3.1Bn (7%) went on buying new equipment / buildings (what they call none-single use items - ie it's not purely military kit)
So that's covered off pretty much 75% of the £43.7Bn. There are a whole raft of other items (T&S, R&D etc) that eat up a couple of percent here and there, but only one other major item.
That item (at £9.5Bn or 22%) of the total is depreciation and impairment, which I was taught a long time ago was an accounting provision which prudent businesses used to set aside funds for new assets as existing ones became due for replacement. However in this case, it is used (I believe) purely as an accounting exercise to reflect decline in value of assets. What is certain is that this £9.5Bn is not real and is not being squirreled away to provide for new kit somewhere in the future. It is therefore more correct to suggest that we actually spend (as opposed to allocate in a budget) around £34Bn on defence.
Just to put it in context, that depreciation figure is ten times what we spend on R&D and twice what we spend on buying new kit. However we also spend twice the amount on service pay that we do on buying new kit.
All of which goes to show that while fiascos like MRA4 hurt, they hurt more because so little of our budget actually goes on kit.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...79994/2013.pdf
Table 1.03.03 on page 10 is particularly illuminating. What it says is that :
Of the £43.7Bn spent in 2012/2013 -
£12Bn (27%) went on pay and associated NI/pension costs, with a service / civvy split of (22%/5%)
£4.5Bn (11%) went on infrastructure costs (energy, phone/IT, property mgmt contracts etc)
£5.6Bn (13%) went on equipment support (aircraft support contracts, ship refits, vehicle repairs etc)
£2.3Bn (5%) went on consumables (fuel, food, ammo, clothing etc)
£4.8Bn (11%) went on buying new kit (Typhoon, Airseeker, QEC, Astute, Wildcat etc)
£3.1Bn (7%) went on buying new equipment / buildings (what they call none-single use items - ie it's not purely military kit)
So that's covered off pretty much 75% of the £43.7Bn. There are a whole raft of other items (T&S, R&D etc) that eat up a couple of percent here and there, but only one other major item.
That item (at £9.5Bn or 22%) of the total is depreciation and impairment, which I was taught a long time ago was an accounting provision which prudent businesses used to set aside funds for new assets as existing ones became due for replacement. However in this case, it is used (I believe) purely as an accounting exercise to reflect decline in value of assets. What is certain is that this £9.5Bn is not real and is not being squirreled away to provide for new kit somewhere in the future. It is therefore more correct to suggest that we actually spend (as opposed to allocate in a budget) around £34Bn on defence.
Just to put it in context, that depreciation figure is ten times what we spend on R&D and twice what we spend on buying new kit. However we also spend twice the amount on service pay that we do on buying new kit.
All of which goes to show that while fiascos like MRA4 hurt, they hurt more because so little of our budget actually goes on kit.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 4th Apr 2014 at 12:39.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
""Unlike the Russians, the UK had lost the ability to manoeuvre huge army formations, of around 20,000 troops, around the battlefield, Shirreff said. Complex wargame exercises involving an entire division of troops, which had not been held for more than 20 years, needed to be resumed, he said.""
When did we (the British) ever carry out exercises on that scale on our own
- El Alamein was probably the last time
When did we (the British) ever carry out exercises on that scale on our own
- El Alamein was probably the last time
Doesn't the Depreciation cover the infrastructure items?
And impairment covers losses, write-offs, cancellations etc etc as well I'd guess
And impairment covers losses, write-offs, cancellations etc etc as well I'd guess
Either way, an accounting provision accounts for over 1/5 of the military budget.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 4th Apr 2014 at 17:31.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't that line derived from that true enlightenment, Resource Account Budgeting? I recall that's the same RAB that deters IPTS and the likes of NPPO from holding stores that are needed to support obsolescent kit that's still in service and sufficient stores to support current kit that's subject to activity surges.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
once worked for a N American outfit that calculated the depreciation etc office by office - - every so often they' note that one operation was "making a loss" due to the dperciation provision and then close it.
But much of the depreciation was head office overheads allocated across the company - so closing one operation automatically increased everyone else's depreciation and so another location would start to make a paper loss and they'd close it.................
We could never get the finance guys to see what they were doing- or heaven forfend cut head office - - they went bust after a while of course
But much of the depreciation was head office overheads allocated across the company - so closing one operation automatically increased everyone else's depreciation and so another location would start to make a paper loss and they'd close it.................
We could never get the finance guys to see what they were doing- or heaven forfend cut head office - - they went bust after a while of course
Purdah begins Monday March 30th.
Purdah starts today, 30 Mar 15, to coincide with the dissolution of Parliament.
I believe post election the party with the largest majority has 3 weeks to form a Government, which theoretically means no decisions between now and the end of May.
However, given the SDSR, even assuming the CS have already started background work in line with party policies, coupled with the summer recess which last year ran late Jul - early Sep, I would hazard a guess at no major substantive decisions on routine running of Defence, procurement and policy before mid Sep once everything is taken in to account.
I believe post election the party with the largest majority has 3 weeks to form a Government, which theoretically means no decisions between now and the end of May.
However, given the SDSR, even assuming the CS have already started background work in line with party policies, coupled with the summer recess which last year ran late Jul - early Sep, I would hazard a guess at no major substantive decisions on routine running of Defence, procurement and policy before mid Sep once everything is taken in to account.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, given the SDSR, even assuming the CS have already started background work in line with party policies, coupled with the summer recess which last year ran late Jul - early Sep, I would hazard a guess at no major substantive decisions on routine running of Defence, procurement and policy before mid Sep once everything is taken in to account.
now add to that scenario a possibly totally hung parliament, with no majority even with various coalitions and see what you come up with.
I'll give you a starter for 10...
I would hazard a guess at no major substantive decisions on routine running of Defence, procurement and policy before mid Sep 2017 once everything is taken in to account.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mid October 2010. Given that the Tories probably had some ideas up their sleeves before the election it seems about right. TOFOs point is valid though, unless there is a government to kick start the process it will take a while to get the next one out.
Don't really want to think about the possibility of Lab/SNP/Green coalition as that will see major defence 'savings'
Time to start learning Russian?
Don't really want to think about the possibility of Lab/SNP/Green coalition as that will see major defence 'savings'
Time to start learning Russian?
Kitbag,
Not as big as the 'savings' you will see if a Tory administration is returned...
Not as big as the 'savings' you will see if a Tory administration is returned...
Torque,
Thanks for correcting the typo!
And rare as it is I agree with pr00ne, I do find myself almost bracing for impact already and we're only 2 days into the campaign. Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights (assuming we can still afford to keep the lights on and we haven't gone to a 3 day week by October)
Thanks for correcting the typo!
And rare as it is I agree with pr00ne, I do find myself almost bracing for impact already and we're only 2 days into the campaign. Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights (assuming we can still afford to keep the lights on and we haven't gone to a 3 day week by October)
Does nobody else see the irony here? On one thread on pprune (NEM alignment) we have discussions among people, of a variety of ages, about signing on to 60. While here we have a thread discussing quite possible further cuts to the military as a result of an SDSR15.
What's the betting we have further rounds of redundancies in a few years time, involving people who had just signed on to 60?
What's the betting we have further rounds of redundancies in a few years time, involving people who had just signed on to 60?