Latest Rumours ...

[BEagle]

How could such lunacy ever be allowed?

If it's true, how many 'leaders' will resign in disgust.....

And we continue to waste millions on fraudulent immigrants and the decaying railway system.

Truly the old 'Ban the Bomb' lefty idiots are slowly getting their way.

[ShyTorque]

Beags,

I think there is little point in defending the country now as we have apparently already been invaded.

The only thing that won't be cut is the salary and pension increases of those at the top ordering the cuts. Next time you see Buff, ask him where he is going to retire to.....I'll bet it's not Nottingham.

[Hard Bernard]

Latest from The Herald (Glasgow paper) which suggests that there is a systematic outflow of information from Whitehall.


http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/13289.html


RAF to axe 50% of fast-jet student pilots

IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent April 02 2004



THE RAF is to axe up to 50% of this year's candidates for fast-jet pilot training as part of a cutback caused by the Ministry of Defence's cash crisis, sources said yesterday.
All 42 of the student pilots awaiting courses to qualify them for frontline squadrons have been called to a meeting at RAF Linton-on-Ouse in the Vale of York next Tuesday.
Sources say more than 20 will be offered the chance to transfer to helicopters, or transport aircraft training, "administrative" jobs or to take redundancy packages rather than going on to fly fighter or strike jets.
Those who opt for desk jobs are to be given 18 months' seniority, while those who decide to transfer will be "restreamed" for multi-engine flight training.
The move is seen by insiders as the first stage of a programme to cut RAF numbers by up to 25% and reduce the number of operational squadrons to save cash from the MoD's overstretched budget.
An MoD spokeswoman yesterday confirmed the intention to restrict training slots, but denied that the measure was cost-driven. It was a result of improved pass rates on previous courses and better pilot retention because of lack of higher paid civil aviation jobs.
"Undoubtedly, some of those who thought they would be flying fast jets will be disappointed. But this is a prudent manpower management review," she added. "Any suggestion that this is in any way an advance reaction to possible cutbacks in aircraft is pure speculation. No decisions have yet been taken."
The MoD is currently in negotiations to cancel a final batch of Typhoon Eurofighter jets and reduce the RAF's £50bn order from 232 to 143 aircraft.
The RAF already faces pressure to scrap some or all four of its Jaguar jet squadrons, close six bases and slash manpower by an initial 7000 as part of last year's announcement of plans for "leaner, meaner" armed forces.
Naval sources, meanwhile, say two of Britain's three aircraft carriers – Invincible and Illustrious – are also to be taken out of service and offered for sale to the highest bidder.
THE RAF is to axe up to 50% of this year's candidates for fast-jet pilot training as part of a cutback caused by the Ministry of Defence's cash crisis, sources said yesterday.
All 42 of the student pilots awaiting courses to qualify them for frontline squadrons have been called to a meeting at RAF Linton-on-Ouse in the Vale of York next Tuesday.
Sources say more than 20 will be offered the chance to transfer to helicopters, or transport aircraft training, "administrative" jobs or to take redundancy packages rather than going on to fly fighter or strike jets.
Those who opt for desk jobs are to be given 18 months' seniority, while those who decide to transfer will be "restreamed" for multi-engine flight training.
The move is seen by insiders as the first stage of a programme to cut RAF numbers by up to 25% and reduce the number of operational squadrons to save cash from the MoD's overstretched budget.
An MoD spokeswoman yesterday confirmed the intention to restrict training slots, but denied that the measure was cost-driven. It was a result of improved pass rates on previous courses and better pilot retention because of lack of higher paid civil aviation jobs.
"Undoubtedly, some of those who thought they would be flying fast jets will be disappointed. But this is a prudent manpower management review," she added. "Any suggestion that this is in any way an advance reaction to possible cutbacks in aircraft is pure speculation. No decisions have yet been taken."
The MoD is currently in negotiations to cancel a final batch of Typhoon Eurofighter jets and reduce the RAF's £50bn order from 232 to 143 aircraft.
The RAF already faces pressure to scrap some or all four of its Jaguar jet squadrons, close six bases and slash manpower by an initial 7000 as part of last year's announcement of plans for "leaner, meaner" armed forces.
Naval sources, meanwhile, say two of Britain's three aircraft carriers – Invincible and Illustrious – are also to be taken out of service and offered for sale to the highest bidder.
THE RAF is to axe up to 50% of this year's candidates for fast-jet pilot training as part of a cutback caused by the Ministry of Defence's cash crisis, sources said yesterday.
All 42 of the student pilots awaiting courses to qualify them for frontline squadrons have been called to a meeting at RAF Linton-on-Ouse in the Vale of York next Tuesday.
Sources say more than 20 will be offered the chance to transfer to helicopters, or transport aircraft training, "administrative" jobs or to take redundancy packages rather than going on to fly fighter or strike jets.
Those who opt for desk jobs are to be given 18 months' seniority, while those who decide to transfer will be "restreamed" for multi-engine flight training.
The move is seen by insiders as the first stage of a programme to cut RAF numbers by up to 25% and reduce the number of operational squadrons to save cash from the MoD's overstretched budget.
An MoD spokeswoman yesterday confirmed the intention to restrict training slots, but denied that the measure was cost-driven. It was a result of improved pass rates on previous courses and better pilot retention because of lack of higher paid civil aviation jobs.
"Undoubtedly, some of those who thought they would be flying fast jets will be disappointed. But this is a prudent manpower management review," she added. "Any suggestion that this is in any way an advance reaction to possible cutbacks in aircraft is pure speculation. No decisions have yet been taken."
The MoD is currently in negotiations to cancel a final batch of Typhoon Eurofighter jets and reduce the RAF's £50bn order from 232 to 143 aircraft.
The RAF already faces pressure to scrap some or all four of its Jaguar jet squadrons, close six bases and slash manpower by an initial 7000 as part of last year's announcement of plans for "leaner, meaner" armed forces.
Naval sources, meanwhile, say two of Britain's three aircraft carriers – Invincible and Illustrious – are also to be taken out of service and offered for sale to the highest bidder.

[soddim]

Expect to see Blair, Brown and Hoon worshipping at a mosque near you soon.

Well, they had better do some praying because they'll soon have no effective armed forces to defend them.

[henry crun]

It sounds like 1957 all over again.

[Gainesy]

Latest from The Herald (Glasgow paper) which suggests that there is a systematic outflow of information from Whitehall.

More like a systematic reading of these pages.

As to "leaders" (I note your use of quotation marks BEags) does the Service have any these days? As opposed to managers.

[Beeayeate]

Remind me again - just how much money has the MoD in general and the RAF in particular recently paid out to, eg, females who fall off their high heels and other, PC-related spongers?

Also, how much did the "gun/no gun" Typhoon fiasco cost? Nimrod wings saga? What, if any, recompense?

And again, reading the posts on this board, how much geld wasted over the past few years on "touchy feely" initiatives (like CD-ROMs for everybody). I don't profess to know all the "internalised" money wasting projects but the last RAF recruitment ad must have taken a fair wodge of geld.

The announcement this morning is nothing short of scandalous.

[Forgot]

Wider Picture

Ladies and Gentlemen....

Look at the timing of these stories.

In the Budget, the real level of defence spending was guaranteed to 2007-08 -- in fact, Brown committed himself to an increase (not stated) -- but avowedly NOT money cuts.

Coincidentally, MOD sends a note to Tony asking for 1.2bn quid next year "because the government accounting system changed" and there was suddenly no money left. Oops! So how come every other department was able to change to the new system without rushing off for more dosh? Is it possible that MOD administration screwed up?

And then there's the new equipment...... The SDR decided that each of the three services' favourite new toys were CRITICAL and therefore had to be acquired (Eurofighter, Apache, CV, Astute), along with lots of other elegant legacy systems (Brimstone, Storm Shadow, TRIGAT spring to mind) that are mind (and budget) blowingly expensive. As a result, it was always obivous that there was going to be a cash crunch between 2005-12 and everyone always knew about it -- so we're now into the middle of the decade and lo and behold, there's the funding shortfall.

So, if the cunning MOD plan was to ignore this and then hope like hell the government would just cough up (and this is before the "issues" around Nimrod 2000 and Astute) then I really wonder what plan B is!

If it's simply to construct the worst possible scenarios for front line cuts, leak it to friendly jornos (Torygraph) and not address the way the MOD spends money..... then I can't see it working very well. I expect that their bluff will be called, some bases will close and consolidate and that (please God) the MOD actually begin to get their administrative act together to support the front line rather than the reverse.

Just my 0.02....

Forgot

[soddim]

Trouble is, Forgot, that once these people and capabilities have been cut, no level of MOD improvement will bring them back. The RAF appear to be losing much of its' most capable fast jet force before Typhoon is even cleared to drop or fire a weapon.

Even if one blames MOD for the budget problems that does not justify these cuts.

Any government that allows this to happen should resign in shame.

[steamchicken]

This whole resource-accounting lark, although being very free market, big business stuff and hence attractive to red meat chomping Tories and Treasury Devils (is there any difference?), is simply unsuited to the MoD, whose core business depends on huge stocks of kit that can by definition never produce a return - weapons destroy, after all - hence if you have a Treasury "cost of capital charge" of 6% on everything, it will be permanently shagged.

Simple solution - don't apply the new accounting book to the MoD. Crisis over. Back to your desks! Unfortunately, this would involve the "real, unchanging government" as James Meek called it in the Grauniad yesterday - the Treasury - admitting it was wrong. This has never happened in all of Britain's past history, and there is no reason for it to happen now.

[Archimedes]

You forget the retreat from the Gold Standard, Devaluation in 1949 and 1967 and the ERM.

The Treasury tried telling us it was right in all cases until it was manifestly obvious they were speaking through an orifice not normally employed for direct speech, whereupon a humiliating retreat followed.

A word in Gordon's ear from CDS (You do realise that we will be unable to deploy any forces to meet your foreign policy objectives when you become Prime Minister, don't you, Mr Brown?) might do the trick...

[steamchicken]

Oh, that wasn't OUR fault Prime Minister - it's you who can't keep the Spending Departments under control!/the Yanks and the conditions they put on the loan/the Germans for not doing what we wanted them to/somebody else!

PS, in my view going back onto the gold standard in 1925 was the worse mistake. And Winston Churchill made it all on his own against the mandarins' (and John Maynard Keynes') advice.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Perhaps a word from President Bush (Senior or Junior) would help.....

[Archimedes]

Yes, that's quite true - I used to use this when teaching a course on British politics as an example of how, sometimes, ministers were able to go against the advice of the Treasury, but that this one case had frightened the next three generations of Chancellors (or more) into doing everything they were told....

[Forgot]

Never thought that I get into this dicussion here, but here's where accouting becomes important. Resource Accounting is nothing more exotic than standard commercial accounting, in which you pay for something when you commit to it (rather than when the bill arrives) and you spread the cost of things over their useful life, rather than considering it all at once. What does this do? It forces decision makers to consider the long term impacts of their decisions, and helps them make beter ones.

Here's how. Let's assume that the RAF has a knackered fleet of jets. It has two choices: (a) do a big overhaul and mid-life update, giving 15 years more service or (b) buy new jet with 30 year life and lower direct operating costs. Now, let's assume that option (a) costs 2/3rds of (b). In the world of cash budgets, departments tended to select the lower cash cost -- despite the fact that it was poorer militarily and poorer value for money. Because the new accounting system makes you consider the whole cost of the programme, the decisionmaker would chose (b) -- because the better value would be clear from day one, not just later.

-- the cost of capital charge forces people to make choices about what they invest in and how. It is currently set at 3.5% (reduced from 6%) and budgets were increased to cover the capital charge a couple of years ago. Now, if departments are smarter about the amount of capital they use -- mostly land and buildings -- then money is released for other things. Again, all the incentives are there for MOD to concentrate on the front line rather than on the administration of the organisation. And that should include looking at the Group Structure, (required now?) the number of bases and their location (if 16AMB are in Colchester and Wattisham, why not stick transports at Woodbridge / Bentwaters) and the number of civilians / service personnel doing administration and what may politely be describes as "non-core activity"!

Does this demand a different set of leadership skills from yesterday -- yes. Is this a good thing -- absolutely, as it demonstrates efficiency and value for money to the taxpayers who fund this. And the climate is such that demonstrable efficiency is key. Does it mean that the overblown promises of kit in the SDR need looking at again? Yep! But is this a bad thing? No.

Forgot

[steamchicken]

Indeed. The problem is that the defence establishment will never be a commercial enterprise - it will always need a gigantic capital base, with the unusual feature that none of it makes money and most of it costs money when it's standing still. Trying to fund mission critical activities in government from efficiency gains is not historically a successful policy. You can hire offices from Regus when you want them - try outsourcing an army! If any of the current rumours is true, it would appear that the transitional cost is so damaging that the game is not worth the candle.

[Forgot]

Steamchicken

Yes..... but the whole point was that the capital intensity was recognised under the transition and MOD's budget increased to cover the capital charge. As a result, any benefits now are real; and don't forget that resource accounting was introduced on an all party basis -- it isn't going away. However, it may well be forcing a torch to be shone in all sorts of places that haven't be examined for ages -- all to the good.

Inasmuch as it forces us to think about the structure of the forces and slay some sacred cows (PMA, Groups, etc) -- so much the better!

Yours, aye

Forgot

[Pontius Navigator]

Forgot,
I went on a course to learn what you just said. It cost about £200 in T&S and probably £300 ahead. I had to wait a year and then got a course 6 months hence. I was lucky and got a cancellation.

Your two messages explain everything and the course explained nothing.

Thank you.

[Forgot]

PN--

Thank-you for your insights! Getting back to the impact of the said accounting faff, what would you change?

Forgot

[althenick]

RAF to get the Apache....

in the present climate it's too expensive - the Crabs would have to accept Army non-com pilots into their system and give them a commission. Which would bring the whole tone of the officers mess's down to rock - bottom and would raise the average IQ of the said mess's by 200%. then of course there's the increase in pay, the extra squadron personnel, and the freedoms which officers expect (Resigning with far more benefits than the non-coms)

Of course if the romour is true about Non-com pilots being introduced to the FAA and RAF things might change???