Cuts - Telegraph - 13 May
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cuts - Telegraph - 13 May
We have discussed the exposure of cuts and the nature of what is said. Starting to hear from within the MoD now.......
Forces face 'ruthless' cuts as MoD seeks to save £1bn
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 13/05/2004)
The Ministry of Defence's most senior civil servant admitted yesterday that the Armed Forces faced major cuts because of Treasury spending restrictions.
Sir Kevin Tebbit, the MoD's permanent secretary, confirmed last month's disclosures in The Telegraph that 16 MoD committees, known as "work-strands", were looking to save more than £1 billion.
His admission to the Commons defence select committee came as the First Sea Lord, Adml Sir Alan West, conceded that the Royal Navy would have to lose a number of destroyers and frigates.
The loss of up to a fifth of the Navy's surface vessels, originally reported in The Telegraph in January, would leave it smaller than the French navy for the first time since the 17th century.
Confirming that he expected "ruthless" cuts, Adml West said in an interview published yesterday that "there'll be a hit on the destroyer/frigate force".
"We're trying to fit the programme to the cash we've got," he said. "There are going to be some hard choices and ministers will have to review all the implications, including industrial ones."
That implied the threat of job losses and Sir Kevin's admissions to MPs were seen as a joint MoD campaign to put pressure on the Treasury to secure a better deal in the July spending round.
Sir Kevin told the defence committee that, despite the increased demands on the Armed Forces by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Treasury had ordered the MoD to cut its spending over the past year.
The MoD's overall budget remained unchanged, but he admitted that it was under pressure and he had been told by the Treasury to "constrain those activities which generated a cash spend".
The combined attack provoked an angry response from the Treasury, which denied that it was forcing the MoD into defence cuts. "Far from cuts, the 2002 spending review is delivering the biggest sustained increase for 20 years," it said.
But Sir Kevin pre-empted that claim by telling the defence committee that Treasury claims about the improvement in the budget were "more a reflection of how small the increases had been over the years".
The Treasury also claimed yesterday that it was funding the cost of successive campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Sierra Leone in full. But defence sources pointed out that the fact that the Treasury was referring to the campaign in Kosovo, five years after the event, was a reflection of how hard it was to recoup anything like the real costs of military operations.
"Tony Blair wants us to do all these things that allow him to strut the world stage and we are very happy to do them," one source said. "Gordon Brown always promises in public that he will fund it all in full.
"But then he goes through the list of expenditure saying that most of it we would have spent anyway and refuses to pay, not taking into account that we still have to fund all our normal activities as well as fight a war."
Both the Royal Navy and the RAF are expected to take savage cuts in their strength in order to pay for expensive new projects and in particular the Royal Navy's two new carriers and the RAF's Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft.
The "work-strands" have been told that in particular that they must find ways of closing bases. This is because a new Treasury accounting system known as resource account budgeting penalises departments that hold large amounts of land, something the MoD cannot avoid.
Under proposals put forward by the "work-strands", the RAF would lose all of its 141 Jaguar and Harrier ground attack aircraft, its 39 Puma helicopters and a number of bases.
The Army would lose 50 Challenger II tanks, 50 Warrior armoured personnel carriers, 120 helicopters and a number of bases.
But by far the most controversial of the proposals was the suggestion that two Royal Navy aircraft carriers - Illustrious and Invincible - be laid up and only two frigates sold. Adml West is committed to the new carriers and has infuriated some colleagues by his willingness to sacrifice frigates and destroyers.
Adml West said three Type 42 destroyers and a number of the relatively new Type 23 frigates were likely to be axed. But this was seen as a minimum.
It is far more likely that unless the carriers are laid up, all four of the Type 42 destroyers will go, along with a significant number of frigates.
I love the way RAB is still being touted as a reason for it all.
Forces face 'ruthless' cuts as MoD seeks to save £1bn
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 13/05/2004)
The Ministry of Defence's most senior civil servant admitted yesterday that the Armed Forces faced major cuts because of Treasury spending restrictions.
Sir Kevin Tebbit, the MoD's permanent secretary, confirmed last month's disclosures in The Telegraph that 16 MoD committees, known as "work-strands", were looking to save more than £1 billion.
His admission to the Commons defence select committee came as the First Sea Lord, Adml Sir Alan West, conceded that the Royal Navy would have to lose a number of destroyers and frigates.
The loss of up to a fifth of the Navy's surface vessels, originally reported in The Telegraph in January, would leave it smaller than the French navy for the first time since the 17th century.
Confirming that he expected "ruthless" cuts, Adml West said in an interview published yesterday that "there'll be a hit on the destroyer/frigate force".
"We're trying to fit the programme to the cash we've got," he said. "There are going to be some hard choices and ministers will have to review all the implications, including industrial ones."
That implied the threat of job losses and Sir Kevin's admissions to MPs were seen as a joint MoD campaign to put pressure on the Treasury to secure a better deal in the July spending round.
Sir Kevin told the defence committee that, despite the increased demands on the Armed Forces by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Treasury had ordered the MoD to cut its spending over the past year.
The MoD's overall budget remained unchanged, but he admitted that it was under pressure and he had been told by the Treasury to "constrain those activities which generated a cash spend".
The combined attack provoked an angry response from the Treasury, which denied that it was forcing the MoD into defence cuts. "Far from cuts, the 2002 spending review is delivering the biggest sustained increase for 20 years," it said.
But Sir Kevin pre-empted that claim by telling the defence committee that Treasury claims about the improvement in the budget were "more a reflection of how small the increases had been over the years".
The Treasury also claimed yesterday that it was funding the cost of successive campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Sierra Leone in full. But defence sources pointed out that the fact that the Treasury was referring to the campaign in Kosovo, five years after the event, was a reflection of how hard it was to recoup anything like the real costs of military operations.
"Tony Blair wants us to do all these things that allow him to strut the world stage and we are very happy to do them," one source said. "Gordon Brown always promises in public that he will fund it all in full.
"But then he goes through the list of expenditure saying that most of it we would have spent anyway and refuses to pay, not taking into account that we still have to fund all our normal activities as well as fight a war."
Both the Royal Navy and the RAF are expected to take savage cuts in their strength in order to pay for expensive new projects and in particular the Royal Navy's two new carriers and the RAF's Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft.
The "work-strands" have been told that in particular that they must find ways of closing bases. This is because a new Treasury accounting system known as resource account budgeting penalises departments that hold large amounts of land, something the MoD cannot avoid.
Under proposals put forward by the "work-strands", the RAF would lose all of its 141 Jaguar and Harrier ground attack aircraft, its 39 Puma helicopters and a number of bases.
The Army would lose 50 Challenger II tanks, 50 Warrior armoured personnel carriers, 120 helicopters and a number of bases.
But by far the most controversial of the proposals was the suggestion that two Royal Navy aircraft carriers - Illustrious and Invincible - be laid up and only two frigates sold. Adml West is committed to the new carriers and has infuriated some colleagues by his willingness to sacrifice frigates and destroyers.
Adml West said three Type 42 destroyers and a number of the relatively new Type 23 frigates were likely to be axed. But this was seen as a minimum.
It is far more likely that unless the carriers are laid up, all four of the Type 42 destroyers will go, along with a significant number of frigates.
I love the way RAB is still being touted as a reason for it all.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navy to borrow ships for Nelson tributes
By Benedict Brogan, Political Correspondent
(Filed: 13/05/2004)
The Royal Navy will have to rely on private donations and borrowed ships to mark the bicentenary of Nelson's victory at Trafalgar, the Ministry of Defence admitted yesterday.
Budget cuts and the Treasury's refusal to make extra cash available mean the events planned for next year, culminating in a Fleet Review in the Solent, will go ahead only if sufficient sponsorship can be found.
The uncertainty surrounding the celebrations of the battle in which Nelson defeated the combined fleets of Spain and France and left England ruling the waves was exposed publicly for the first time yesterday. At the launch of the 200th anniversary programme, the First Sea Lord and the Armed Forces minister had to concede that the scale of next year's events would depend on the amount of money raised from companies and individuals.
The MoD hopes that up to 100 ships will take part in the fleet review off Spithead, which is expected to be watched by the Queen. But as The Telegraph revealed in December, senior officers fear they may struggle to put on a show.
Admiral Sir Alan West, the First Sea Lord, was unable to say how many British ships would be available for the Fleet Review, or how many of the 70 countries that have been invited to send ships would take part. But the MoD confirmed that it is relying on tall ships, "prestigious merchant vessels", racing and cruising yachts, fishing boats, work boats and family boats to make up the numbers.
France has said it hopes to send its aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, and Spain expects to take part. The United States, which has relied on British support in Iraq, has not promised anything.
Mr Ingram, who today faces a grilling in the Commons over reports of abuses by British servicemen in Iraq, appealed for public and media support.
"We need your help," he said, adding that the level of sponsorship raised would decide the "precise scope of the programme". He denied that it was "shameful" that the Government was refusing to pay the costs of the celebrations.
The amount available from the public purse would depend on the amount raised privately, he added.
Admiral West said the number of British ships available for the review would "depend on international circumstances". He admitted that the Royal Navy was facing further cuts.
The Fleet Review off Portsmouth on June 28 next year will open the bicentenary season.
Six days of events will include a son et lumiere display of a Napoleonic battle, fireworks, a drumhead ceremony, and the International Festival of the Sea at Portsmouth naval base. In the autumn, around the actual anniversary of Trafalgar on Oct 21, there will be a dinner on board Victory, Nelson's flagship and a service in St Paul's Cathedral.
There are plans to recreate the journey of Lt Lapenotiere, who brought the news of Nelson's victory to London, covering the 270-miles from Falmouth, where his ship landed, in 38 hours.
The MoD has set up Trafalgar 200 - www.trafalgar200.com - which will spend the coming months trying to raise money and encourage public involvement.
It is understood that a number of corporations have already expressed interest in becoming major sponsors.
By Benedict Brogan, Political Correspondent
(Filed: 13/05/2004)
The Royal Navy will have to rely on private donations and borrowed ships to mark the bicentenary of Nelson's victory at Trafalgar, the Ministry of Defence admitted yesterday.
Budget cuts and the Treasury's refusal to make extra cash available mean the events planned for next year, culminating in a Fleet Review in the Solent, will go ahead only if sufficient sponsorship can be found.
The uncertainty surrounding the celebrations of the battle in which Nelson defeated the combined fleets of Spain and France and left England ruling the waves was exposed publicly for the first time yesterday. At the launch of the 200th anniversary programme, the First Sea Lord and the Armed Forces minister had to concede that the scale of next year's events would depend on the amount of money raised from companies and individuals.
The MoD hopes that up to 100 ships will take part in the fleet review off Spithead, which is expected to be watched by the Queen. But as The Telegraph revealed in December, senior officers fear they may struggle to put on a show.
Admiral Sir Alan West, the First Sea Lord, was unable to say how many British ships would be available for the Fleet Review, or how many of the 70 countries that have been invited to send ships would take part. But the MoD confirmed that it is relying on tall ships, "prestigious merchant vessels", racing and cruising yachts, fishing boats, work boats and family boats to make up the numbers.
France has said it hopes to send its aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, and Spain expects to take part. The United States, which has relied on British support in Iraq, has not promised anything.
Mr Ingram, who today faces a grilling in the Commons over reports of abuses by British servicemen in Iraq, appealed for public and media support.
"We need your help," he said, adding that the level of sponsorship raised would decide the "precise scope of the programme". He denied that it was "shameful" that the Government was refusing to pay the costs of the celebrations.
The amount available from the public purse would depend on the amount raised privately, he added.
Admiral West said the number of British ships available for the review would "depend on international circumstances". He admitted that the Royal Navy was facing further cuts.
The Fleet Review off Portsmouth on June 28 next year will open the bicentenary season.
Six days of events will include a son et lumiere display of a Napoleonic battle, fireworks, a drumhead ceremony, and the International Festival of the Sea at Portsmouth naval base. In the autumn, around the actual anniversary of Trafalgar on Oct 21, there will be a dinner on board Victory, Nelson's flagship and a service in St Paul's Cathedral.
There are plans to recreate the journey of Lt Lapenotiere, who brought the news of Nelson's victory to London, covering the 270-miles from Falmouth, where his ship landed, in 38 hours.
The MoD has set up Trafalgar 200 - www.trafalgar200.com - which will spend the coming months trying to raise money and encourage public involvement.
It is understood that a number of corporations have already expressed interest in becoming major sponsors.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Resource Account Budgeting.
Referred to in the article. Basically, it is not that bad a method for concentrating the effort on what is slack in the system. There are penalties on such things as:
Empty buildings, unused land, equipment stored with no use and other such things.
All Govt Depts use this now. MoD was the last to bring it in. There are some differences in needs between Depts (we need land to exercise on, along with relevant support buildings etc) but I'm not up to speed on that. I do know that it helped look at some of the cr@p we are/were storing for no reason, and the costs involved in that. It is a method of NOT cash accounting, which we have suffered from for a long time (quickest way of making cuts = getting rid of biggest cash expenditure = wages). At least the value of 'things' as well as cash spent is visible. Has to be better to amalgamate people onto fewer bases than keep a dispersed estate and balance with less people.
For the truly dull, have a look here:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/documents/public_spending_and_services/audit_and_accounting/pss_aud_index.cfm
Referred to in the article. Basically, it is not that bad a method for concentrating the effort on what is slack in the system. There are penalties on such things as:
Empty buildings, unused land, equipment stored with no use and other such things.
All Govt Depts use this now. MoD was the last to bring it in. There are some differences in needs between Depts (we need land to exercise on, along with relevant support buildings etc) but I'm not up to speed on that. I do know that it helped look at some of the cr@p we are/were storing for no reason, and the costs involved in that. It is a method of NOT cash accounting, which we have suffered from for a long time (quickest way of making cuts = getting rid of biggest cash expenditure = wages). At least the value of 'things' as well as cash spent is visible. Has to be better to amalgamate people onto fewer bases than keep a dispersed estate and balance with less people.
For the truly dull, have a look here:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/documents/public_spending_and_services/audit_and_accounting/pss_aud_index.cfm
"helped look at some of the cr@p we are/were storing for no reason"
hmmm. Like desert kit, body armour, NBC kit, surplus Tornado airframes, etc. Under RAB you are penalised for the original 'book value' of kit which may be potentially operationally useful, which is worth holding on to for contingency use, and which may have little or no resale value. It presupposes that it's a good idea not to hold on to assets which are bought and paid for and that there is a real cost in doing so (whereas in fact the cost may be theoretical). It takes no account whatever of the cost of replacing equipment or bases or whatever at a later date if circumstances change.
RAB may be appropriate for some departments, and may have further applicability if applied with common sense, or as means of highlighting areas to look at.
But I'm inclined to think that it's a perfect technique for those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
hmmm. Like desert kit, body armour, NBC kit, surplus Tornado airframes, etc. Under RAB you are penalised for the original 'book value' of kit which may be potentially operationally useful, which is worth holding on to for contingency use, and which may have little or no resale value. It presupposes that it's a good idea not to hold on to assets which are bought and paid for and that there is a real cost in doing so (whereas in fact the cost may be theoretical). It takes no account whatever of the cost of replacing equipment or bases or whatever at a later date if circumstances change.
RAB may be appropriate for some departments, and may have further applicability if applied with common sense, or as means of highlighting areas to look at.
But I'm inclined to think that it's a perfect technique for those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I think it can be taken as read that the T42B1s will go. The crews have already been forwarned. There's a 50:50 chance of losing two T23s with Chile the likely buyer.
Lets put all this in perspective. We lose 3 30 year old, ineffective DDs., two anti-submarine biased FFGs. If this the price for securing CVF then so be it.
I hear the scare stories about losing the Jaguar and Harrier are just that scare stories. Things are never as good or as bas as they seem.
Lets put all this in perspective. We lose 3 30 year old, ineffective DDs., two anti-submarine biased FFGs. If this the price for securing CVF then so be it.
I hear the scare stories about losing the Jaguar and Harrier are just that scare stories. Things are never as good or as bas as they seem.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko - fair point, good use of colour.
Why would you let common sense get in the way of anything? We've managed so far without it!
I agree it needs some adjusting - especially for us. I believe that you need to know the true value of everything you have / use / own and it ensures you make better decisions. The concept is a good one but not applied very well.
As for the stuff you mention - there was loads of it that came out of storage and that was the crying shame - body armour straight from the streets of 70s Belfast to the desert last year - awful kit. I meant things like spares and tools for aircraft we've not flown in 20 yrs, vehicle spares for vehicles we don't run etc.
I was miffed to find desert DPM we opened in May last yr had been in storage since 92! We're a strange beast that the governments have never really understood or cared for too much.
Why would you let common sense get in the way of anything? We've managed so far without it!
I agree it needs some adjusting - especially for us. I believe that you need to know the true value of everything you have / use / own and it ensures you make better decisions. The concept is a good one but not applied very well.
As for the stuff you mention - there was loads of it that came out of storage and that was the crying shame - body armour straight from the streets of 70s Belfast to the desert last year - awful kit. I meant things like spares and tools for aircraft we've not flown in 20 yrs, vehicle spares for vehicles we don't run etc.
I was miffed to find desert DPM we opened in May last yr had been in storage since 92! We're a strange beast that the governments have never really understood or cared for too much.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Mr C,
Not sure how you value real estate in an RAB situation: you can take present use for say, an RAF station, or you could take change of use to, say, housing. Obviously you will get a massively different valuation.
Come to think of it, MoD in Whitehall would fetch a bob or two if you booted all the penpushers out and put MoD into smaller premises.
I wonder if the Treasury, who are presumably behind this, will take their own medicine, considering the palazzo that Prime Mi.. sorry, Chancellor G Brown is constructing for his own empire... no, thought not
Not sure how you value real estate in an RAB situation: you can take present use for say, an RAF station, or you could take change of use to, say, housing. Obviously you will get a massively different valuation.
Come to think of it, MoD in Whitehall would fetch a bob or two if you booted all the penpushers out and put MoD into smaller premises.
I wonder if the Treasury, who are presumably behind this, will take their own medicine, considering the palazzo that Prime Mi.. sorry, Chancellor G Brown is constructing for his own empire... no, thought not
Better to have NI 1970s body armour and 1992 desert DPM than none at all. And because much had been got rid of because of RAB, many personnel famously went without both during Telic.
Better to have retained a few spare PR9 noses to avoid the critical situation with regard to pressurisation cycles that we're now facing, or spare engines for the Canberra T4 (they can only fly one T4, 'cos they only have two serviceable engines).
And the list of examples goes on and on....
The Forces exist in order to react to unexpected and unpredictable contingencies. Trying to apply RAB rules to such an organisation is barking.
Better to have retained a few spare PR9 noses to avoid the critical situation with regard to pressurisation cycles that we're now facing, or spare engines for the Canberra T4 (they can only fly one T4, 'cos they only have two serviceable engines).
And the list of examples goes on and on....
The Forces exist in order to react to unexpected and unpredictable contingencies. Trying to apply RAB rules to such an organisation is barking.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I keep an eye on my local government surplus stores. If I need it I buy it back. Usually at one tenth the cost and brand new. Parafin lamps? OK maybe not the world's safest piece of kit but brand new, been in store since 1955!
Cost under RAB is not just the cost of the lamp - pennies - but the building and several generations on store keeper too.
Hangs in my conservatory now. Mind you we are not the only ones. The German army disposed of trenching tools - multi-purpose ones with a pick or spade. Brand new, made in 1955; yes think about that date.
Cost under RAB is not just the cost of the lamp - pennies - but the building and several generations on store keeper too.
Hangs in my conservatory now. Mind you we are not the only ones. The German army disposed of trenching tools - multi-purpose ones with a pick or spade. Brand new, made in 1955; yes think about that date.
...taking of army surplus stores... are we likely to see a few score of Merlin's on the shelf before long? One (fairly) careful owner, need slight mechanical attention, otherwise clean, fast and impressive machines.... current owner has run out of funds to maintain fleet so downsizing to Nissan Micra.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear all,
This sounds like a perfect excuse to cancel the CVF and JSF.
MOD needs to save £1bn and yet the navy still wants two new carriers and a fleet of new aircraft that will not be ready for at least another decade. All the while the troops sent abroad are ill-equipped in the here and now.
The carriers are a huge white elephant ( or two huge white elephants to be correct ). We need to realise that we are not in the power projection business anymore. The empire is gone. We do not need to go protect assets "East of Suez".
Plus, what is going to act as protective escorts if we continue to sell off the frigates and destroyers at the rate we are?
Cheers
BHR
This sounds like a perfect excuse to cancel the CVF and JSF.
MOD needs to save £1bn and yet the navy still wants two new carriers and a fleet of new aircraft that will not be ready for at least another decade. All the while the troops sent abroad are ill-equipped in the here and now.
The carriers are a huge white elephant ( or two huge white elephants to be correct ). We need to realise that we are not in the power projection business anymore. The empire is gone. We do not need to go protect assets "East of Suez".
Plus, what is going to act as protective escorts if we continue to sell off the frigates and destroyers at the rate we are?
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that RAB was the cause of the major kit shortages on TELIC - that implies the stuff had all been on the shelves in the first place and been disposed of.
Part of the problem is that MOD (esp. DLO) don't necessarily have a full picture of the value of what they hold or its need/utility. RAB is frequently used as a convenient excuse for not putting funds into low cost, politically unimportant, proects and items (like infantry kit, desert combats et al) whilst retaining funding for the 'white elephants' referred to. How many sets of body armour, NBC suits, medical supplies etc etc would a couple of Typhoons fund? Or Hawks?
What kit are our forces more likely to require in the next expedition? You just need to look at the repetition of UORs over the last few ops. Its not RAB that's broken, its the EP.
Just a view.
TF
Part of the problem is that MOD (esp. DLO) don't necessarily have a full picture of the value of what they hold or its need/utility. RAB is frequently used as a convenient excuse for not putting funds into low cost, politically unimportant, proects and items (like infantry kit, desert combats et al) whilst retaining funding for the 'white elephants' referred to. How many sets of body armour, NBC suits, medical supplies etc etc would a couple of Typhoons fund? Or Hawks?
What kit are our forces more likely to require in the next expedition? You just need to look at the repetition of UORs over the last few ops. Its not RAB that's broken, its the EP.
Just a view.
TF
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of allowing what could be a good thread to descend into scribble some thoughts on RAB.
It, or at least the difference in opinion as to how it should be applied, is at the heart of the current problem. The budget is made up of the cash element and the so-called 'non-cash' element. It is this last bit that contains things such as depreciation, capital charges for retaining kit, land etc. The two columns when added together make up your budget which clearly has a bottom (aggregated) line.
MOD, under Treasury guidance, set off merrily operating within the bottom line figure. And they were bloody good at it. So good that they thought their other plans which required cash would be sustainable. The Treasury however have to raise the cash through plundering the reserve, borrowing or taxation - this they couldn't do! So instead of reaping the benefits of RAB we've been forced back to a cash based system operating in relative isolation from the other aspects.
A Treasury official commented that it was clear the MOD understood RAB better than HMT did! But we still haven't got the cash!
On kit - there is an industrial point here. When buying bits like CS95 or body armour you bulk up the reuirement, buy say 5 years worth at a go and store them for trickle issue. This way industry tools up for your job and you get value for money at the front end (but pay a premium in storage). Given the small size of UK forces we just don't buy enough stuff for industry to be tooled up all the time for every item. Of course we could always go and buy it from Uncle Sam!
We're in a financial bind - partly created through treasury rules which are not great for MOD business. Just goes to show that in Government Finance (like so many things) one size doesn't fit all. In fact we seem to have a system where one size fits nobody!
It, or at least the difference in opinion as to how it should be applied, is at the heart of the current problem. The budget is made up of the cash element and the so-called 'non-cash' element. It is this last bit that contains things such as depreciation, capital charges for retaining kit, land etc. The two columns when added together make up your budget which clearly has a bottom (aggregated) line.
MOD, under Treasury guidance, set off merrily operating within the bottom line figure. And they were bloody good at it. So good that they thought their other plans which required cash would be sustainable. The Treasury however have to raise the cash through plundering the reserve, borrowing or taxation - this they couldn't do! So instead of reaping the benefits of RAB we've been forced back to a cash based system operating in relative isolation from the other aspects.
A Treasury official commented that it was clear the MOD understood RAB better than HMT did! But we still haven't got the cash!
On kit - there is an industrial point here. When buying bits like CS95 or body armour you bulk up the reuirement, buy say 5 years worth at a go and store them for trickle issue. This way industry tools up for your job and you get value for money at the front end (but pay a premium in storage). Given the small size of UK forces we just don't buy enough stuff for industry to be tooled up all the time for every item. Of course we could always go and buy it from Uncle Sam!
We're in a financial bind - partly created through treasury rules which are not great for MOD business. Just goes to show that in Government Finance (like so many things) one size doesn't fit all. In fact we seem to have a system where one size fits nobody!
The point is that the supposed cost of storing spares, retaining older kit is founded on civilian practise, and which may not be appropriate in the military environment. It may be economically sensible to sell off defence estate (including storage bases) but RAB takes no account of the fact that it's strategically insane, and seldom takes account of the fact that defence estate oftenh has to be sold back to the original owner at 1930s or 1940s prices.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of sounding like the company accountant RAB like any set of accounting rules and procedures, is designed to promote 'good behaviour' among those responsible for manageing budgets. Good behaviour as defined by HMT is translated into finacial rules that penalise the holding of large numbers (financially at least) of assets. To minimise exposure to financial penalty under RAB, budget holders are encouraged to divest themselves of assets. This is good in some organisations but bad in others.
Anyway back to the thrust of the thread which was about reductions, not about how we've got in this pickle. For my money (and as a tax payer it is my money) I'd suggest that that the follow on nuclear deterrent should not be based on a single role special to type submarine but a smaller device capable of being fitted into Stormshadow or TLAM. This would be far cheaper and achieve the same effect which is not to hold the non-free world to nuclear ransom but to allow Tony B and his successors to strut their stuff on the world stage as a nuke power - discuss.
Anyway back to the thrust of the thread which was about reductions, not about how we've got in this pickle. For my money (and as a tax payer it is my money) I'd suggest that that the follow on nuclear deterrent should not be based on a single role special to type submarine but a smaller device capable of being fitted into Stormshadow or TLAM. This would be far cheaper and achieve the same effect which is not to hold the non-free world to nuclear ransom but to allow Tony B and his successors to strut their stuff on the world stage as a nuke power - discuss.
When you can store the Spitfire spares (or the Canberra engines) in an existing shed (which may have some potential contingency use) at a base which you cannot sell at a proper commercial value, then the 'cost' of storing them may not be what the RAB accountants suggest.
The holding of 'spare' body armour, arctic kit, desert kit, etc. should not be penalised. The RAF is not BMW-Rover, and does not have a predictable steady output. It shouldn't be treated in the same way.
The holding of 'spare' body armour, arctic kit, desert kit, etc. should not be penalised. The RAF is not BMW-Rover, and does not have a predictable steady output. It shouldn't be treated in the same way.
