And now another £18 Bn in defence cuts...
Thread Starter
And now another £18 Bn in defence cuts...
From today's Sunday Times:
May 29, 2005
MoD blamed as forces face £18bn cutback
Michael Smith and Peter Almond
THE armed forces are facing £18 billion of cuts or delays to “essential” ships, aircraft, armoured vehicles and equipment over the next decade because the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has overspent its budget.
This weekend Lord Boyce, the former chief of the defence staff, joined opposition parties in condemning the government as “irresponsible” for failing to fund the programmes.
Many were promoted by the government as high-technology systems that would more than compensate for the scrapping of equipment and units that it announced last year.
New figures have shown that the MoD is forecasting a procurement budget of £66 billion for the next 10 years compared with projected spending of £84 billion.
The Treasury has refused to provide any more money, leaving the forces no choice but to accept stringent cuts or delays to many of their most cherished programmes.
Last July Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, announced that 20,000 personnel would be cut from the forces along with 14 Royal Navy ships, the RAF’s fleet of Jaguar bombers, four infantry battalions and 80 Challenger 2 tanks.
Whitehall sources have now disclosed that a new round of cuts is looming with spending on 15 key projects, which were expected to cost a total of at least £40 billion over the next decade, having to be cut to £22 billion.
The plans for future equipment likely to be affected include the navy’s two new aircraft carriers and the air force’s Joint Strike Fighters (JSF), both of which are considered by military top brass to be essential to the armed forces’ doctrine of expeditionary warfare — sending troops to trouble spots around the world.
The carriers are expected to be reduced in size and their current delivery dates of 2012 will be pushed back, while the number of JSFs could be cut from the planned figure of 150 aircraft to as few as 100.
The army will have to delay plans for a new generation of light tanks and armoured personnel carriers designed to make it more mobile and reduce the time it takes to deploy large numbers of troops.
John Reid, the defence secretary, is said to be furious at the extent of the financial problems left behind by Hoon, who should have signed off this year’s equipment plan in the spring but held it over until after the election.
Hoon, now leader of the Commons, repeatedly claimed the forces were enjoying their longest sustained period of increased defence spending, while at the same time imposing big cuts to capabilities.
Boyce, who had to announce the highly controversial decision to scrap the navy’s 24 Harriers in 2002, said the decision to axe a total of six frigates and destroyers and then renege on the new system was “totally dishonest"
May 29, 2005
MoD blamed as forces face £18bn cutback
Michael Smith and Peter Almond
THE armed forces are facing £18 billion of cuts or delays to “essential” ships, aircraft, armoured vehicles and equipment over the next decade because the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has overspent its budget.
This weekend Lord Boyce, the former chief of the defence staff, joined opposition parties in condemning the government as “irresponsible” for failing to fund the programmes.
Many were promoted by the government as high-technology systems that would more than compensate for the scrapping of equipment and units that it announced last year.
New figures have shown that the MoD is forecasting a procurement budget of £66 billion for the next 10 years compared with projected spending of £84 billion.
The Treasury has refused to provide any more money, leaving the forces no choice but to accept stringent cuts or delays to many of their most cherished programmes.
Last July Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, announced that 20,000 personnel would be cut from the forces along with 14 Royal Navy ships, the RAF’s fleet of Jaguar bombers, four infantry battalions and 80 Challenger 2 tanks.
Whitehall sources have now disclosed that a new round of cuts is looming with spending on 15 key projects, which were expected to cost a total of at least £40 billion over the next decade, having to be cut to £22 billion.
The plans for future equipment likely to be affected include the navy’s two new aircraft carriers and the air force’s Joint Strike Fighters (JSF), both of which are considered by military top brass to be essential to the armed forces’ doctrine of expeditionary warfare — sending troops to trouble spots around the world.
The carriers are expected to be reduced in size and their current delivery dates of 2012 will be pushed back, while the number of JSFs could be cut from the planned figure of 150 aircraft to as few as 100.
The army will have to delay plans for a new generation of light tanks and armoured personnel carriers designed to make it more mobile and reduce the time it takes to deploy large numbers of troops.
John Reid, the defence secretary, is said to be furious at the extent of the financial problems left behind by Hoon, who should have signed off this year’s equipment plan in the spring but held it over until after the election.
Hoon, now leader of the Commons, repeatedly claimed the forces were enjoying their longest sustained period of increased defence spending, while at the same time imposing big cuts to capabilities.
Boyce, who had to announce the highly controversial decision to scrap the navy’s 24 Harriers in 2002, said the decision to axe a total of six frigates and destroyers and then renege on the new system was “totally dishonest"
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, God! It's enough to make you weep! I dispair!
Is there no depth to which this Government will not sink? How many more lies and high levels of deception are the British people to suffer at the hands of Bliar and his croneys?
It's the thirties all over again - soon we will be reduced to the capability of a third world armed forces....
Is there no depth to which this Government will not sink? How many more lies and high levels of deception are the British people to suffer at the hands of Bliar and his croneys?
It's the thirties all over again - soon we will be reduced to the capability of a third world armed forces....
I’m afraid this is the usual recycled stuff we see from the press. Yes, it’s mostly true, but either they are poorly informed or the MoD has succeeded in having the copy watered down. Probably both. There is no attempt to get to the bottom of the issues or spell out the consequences. Most readers will think “So what”. It was all predictable, predicted and ignored.
"THE armed forces are facing £18 billion of cuts or delays to “essential” ships, aircraft, armoured vehicles and equipment over the next decade because the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has overspent its budget".
An interesting use of tense. Already overspent? Perhaps alluding to the RAB (Random Asset Budgeting) fiasco, which was predicted by almost every single individual who had to deal with it, and was almost entirely the Treasury’s fault. Alternatively it could be a reference to PFI (Promotion For Instigators), which conveniently avoids up-front costs but commits the Defence Budget to huge, inefficient contacts for decades to come.
"This weekend Lord Boyce, the former chief of the defence staff, joined opposition parties in condemning the government as “irresponsible” for failing to fund the programmes".
Some would say it is irresponsible to run unfunded “programmes”, thus giving the impression to their colleagues and industry that the cash exists. And DPA and DLO are not blameless. Their habitual failure to tell DECs to get lost when the “programmes” clearly fail scrutiny is inexcusable. Too many experienced PMs in DPA are employed on programmes they know are unviable and/or will be cancelled before development or production commences. In fact, whole IPTs are in this situation and are effectively indirect labour; that is, they make no direct contribution to DPA’s primary task – delivering equipment. Yet, they commit scarce resources.
"Many were promoted by the government as high-technology systems that would more than compensate for the scrapping of equipment and units that it announced last year".
Very true. NEC is a typical example of this. Have you actually read JSP777? All it does is describe what NEC is and just about touches on what it hopes to achieve. Any 4th year apprentice can tell you this as knowledge of it, and the process by which it is achieved, is inextricably linked to his pay. (A good incentive). And there’s the rub. Nowhere does the JSP mention how it will be achieved or if it is funded. Not surprising really, given the number of senior MoD staff who BOTH (a) don’t know and (b) think it’s a waste of money. (Do you see the solution?). Oh, and the books describing the process (which is what most DPA/DLO staff actually need to know) are up for cancellation next month. But don’t despair. Last updated in May 1991, anyone deemed suitably qualified to manage (what is now known as) NEC was issued with personal copies, which I sincerely hope he will retain (now that the rest are retired/dead/left DPA).
"Boyce, who had to announce the highly controversial decision to scrap the navy’s 24 Harriers in 2002, said the decision to axe a total of six frigates and destroyers and then renege on the new system was totally dishonest".
I’m afraid he hasn’t a leg to stand on if he, or his colleagues, rolled over and accepted these cuts without agreeing compensatory packages. By that I mean successful risk mitigation through staffing new programmes and completing, at least, a Concept phase. No, that in itself doesn’t guarantee the kit will be bought, but is a lot better than what they’ve left behind, as it leads to understanding. And if the Customer (DEC and above) doesn’t understand, the Treasury will bury them.
"THE armed forces are facing £18 billion of cuts or delays to “essential” ships, aircraft, armoured vehicles and equipment over the next decade because the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has overspent its budget".
An interesting use of tense. Already overspent? Perhaps alluding to the RAB (Random Asset Budgeting) fiasco, which was predicted by almost every single individual who had to deal with it, and was almost entirely the Treasury’s fault. Alternatively it could be a reference to PFI (Promotion For Instigators), which conveniently avoids up-front costs but commits the Defence Budget to huge, inefficient contacts for decades to come.
"This weekend Lord Boyce, the former chief of the defence staff, joined opposition parties in condemning the government as “irresponsible” for failing to fund the programmes".
Some would say it is irresponsible to run unfunded “programmes”, thus giving the impression to their colleagues and industry that the cash exists. And DPA and DLO are not blameless. Their habitual failure to tell DECs to get lost when the “programmes” clearly fail scrutiny is inexcusable. Too many experienced PMs in DPA are employed on programmes they know are unviable and/or will be cancelled before development or production commences. In fact, whole IPTs are in this situation and are effectively indirect labour; that is, they make no direct contribution to DPA’s primary task – delivering equipment. Yet, they commit scarce resources.
"Many were promoted by the government as high-technology systems that would more than compensate for the scrapping of equipment and units that it announced last year".
Very true. NEC is a typical example of this. Have you actually read JSP777? All it does is describe what NEC is and just about touches on what it hopes to achieve. Any 4th year apprentice can tell you this as knowledge of it, and the process by which it is achieved, is inextricably linked to his pay. (A good incentive). And there’s the rub. Nowhere does the JSP mention how it will be achieved or if it is funded. Not surprising really, given the number of senior MoD staff who BOTH (a) don’t know and (b) think it’s a waste of money. (Do you see the solution?). Oh, and the books describing the process (which is what most DPA/DLO staff actually need to know) are up for cancellation next month. But don’t despair. Last updated in May 1991, anyone deemed suitably qualified to manage (what is now known as) NEC was issued with personal copies, which I sincerely hope he will retain (now that the rest are retired/dead/left DPA).
"Boyce, who had to announce the highly controversial decision to scrap the navy’s 24 Harriers in 2002, said the decision to axe a total of six frigates and destroyers and then renege on the new system was totally dishonest".
I’m afraid he hasn’t a leg to stand on if he, or his colleagues, rolled over and accepted these cuts without agreeing compensatory packages. By that I mean successful risk mitigation through staffing new programmes and completing, at least, a Concept phase. No, that in itself doesn’t guarantee the kit will be bought, but is a lot better than what they’ve left behind, as it leads to understanding. And if the Customer (DEC and above) doesn’t understand, the Treasury will bury them.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slow news day then ....
This is the same 18-20 £Bn mismatch in the future programme that was reported on 14 months or so ago and that promted the current round of efficiency (sic) measures. The figures have just been released again in the normal annual reporting cycle so it gives the journalists and ex-CDS' who should know better another go.
There are sometricky decisions ahead and putting them off (as we are prone to doing) only makes it worse in the end.
How about a what would you delete from the future programme and why thread?
This is the same 18-20 £Bn mismatch in the future programme that was reported on 14 months or so ago and that promted the current round of efficiency (sic) measures. The figures have just been released again in the normal annual reporting cycle so it gives the journalists and ex-CDS' who should know better another go.
There are sometricky decisions ahead and putting them off (as we are prone to doing) only makes it worse in the end.
How about a what would you delete from the future programme and why thread?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh deary me!
Impiger - it may be the same money, but there is still not any decision, just a negative atmosphere that continues day after day (as well as completely futile Staff work that is just regurgitating the same old crud). No one has the spine to make a decision just in case they get blamed/media exposure as the person that significantly restrained the UK Armed Forces.
Thank God I pulled the yellow and black when I did! I have heard a rumour (and it is only a rumour) that Future Lynx is dead in the water (for both Brown jobs and Fisheads) which essentially waves good by to Teeny Weenie airways.
Now someone just remind where Buffoons press release is that said that Wastelands had the Future Lynx contract - or was that just pre-election smoke and mirrors and there is a word in his speech that provides a get out clause?
But at least we all know that the £18 billion will be used on worthwhile causes, you know the politically correct, health and safety, litigation rubbish that is just eroding our society beyond any recognition.
One day this country will require warriors-this Govt is hell bent on destroying all ethos, esprit de corps, morale courage let alone the mission critical equipment required to instill confidence and target effect.
When todays politicians are old, writing their memoires, basking in there past 'glories' they may watch CNN/Sky News and see the British body bags returning on mass through Brize and they may see the mass war graves filled with British corpses and then they may realise what a gross error of judgement they made.
My late Aunt was a history teacher - she said that history repeated itself. Without being too dramatic, the rise in the BNP and other such parties across Europe, the drawdown of the military and the real potential for economic decline all have a familiar ring.
I do hope that I am wrong.
Impiger - it may be the same money, but there is still not any decision, just a negative atmosphere that continues day after day (as well as completely futile Staff work that is just regurgitating the same old crud). No one has the spine to make a decision just in case they get blamed/media exposure as the person that significantly restrained the UK Armed Forces.
Thank God I pulled the yellow and black when I did! I have heard a rumour (and it is only a rumour) that Future Lynx is dead in the water (for both Brown jobs and Fisheads) which essentially waves good by to Teeny Weenie airways.
Now someone just remind where Buffoons press release is that said that Wastelands had the Future Lynx contract - or was that just pre-election smoke and mirrors and there is a word in his speech that provides a get out clause?
But at least we all know that the £18 billion will be used on worthwhile causes, you know the politically correct, health and safety, litigation rubbish that is just eroding our society beyond any recognition.
One day this country will require warriors-this Govt is hell bent on destroying all ethos, esprit de corps, morale courage let alone the mission critical equipment required to instill confidence and target effect.
When todays politicians are old, writing their memoires, basking in there past 'glories' they may watch CNN/Sky News and see the British body bags returning on mass through Brize and they may see the mass war graves filled with British corpses and then they may realise what a gross error of judgement they made.
My late Aunt was a history teacher - she said that history repeated itself. Without being too dramatic, the rise in the BNP and other such parties across Europe, the drawdown of the military and the real potential for economic decline all have a familiar ring.
I do hope that I am wrong.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc
"I’m afraid this is the usual recycled stuff we see from the press."
Not this time, whilst the message may be similar perhaps we will see where the cuts are actually going to be this time. I'm afraid a lot of programmes will be going down and I suspect that the EP round was deliberately delayed until after the election. There were a lot of mutterings in town.
Agree with you on RAB, I have made my views clear in previous discussions with Pr00ne why I think it distorts the budget and how it is difficult to manage. My belief is that we have been taken for a ride and that the savings that were due to be put back into the budget have been taken as cost savings measures and that these cuts have been disguised by the introduction of a different accounting system. As for MOD overspending the budget, what on? what has been deliverd or is going to be delivered in the near term?
Regards
Retard
"I’m afraid this is the usual recycled stuff we see from the press."
Not this time, whilst the message may be similar perhaps we will see where the cuts are actually going to be this time. I'm afraid a lot of programmes will be going down and I suspect that the EP round was deliberately delayed until after the election. There were a lot of mutterings in town.
Agree with you on RAB, I have made my views clear in previous discussions with Pr00ne why I think it distorts the budget and how it is difficult to manage. My belief is that we have been taken for a ride and that the savings that were due to be put back into the budget have been taken as cost savings measures and that these cuts have been disguised by the introduction of a different accounting system. As for MOD overspending the budget, what on? what has been deliverd or is going to be delivered in the near term?
Regards
Retard
Last edited by engineer(retard); 29th May 2005 at 11:11.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EU rot sets in
Last July Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, announced that 20,000 personnel would be cut from the forces along with 14 Royal Navy ships, the RAF’s fleet of Jaguar bombers, four infantry battalions and 80 Challenger 2 tanks.
New Labour in government, and their affair with the EU, produces the rotten children!
God help us as the EU rots sets in!
TG
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true. NEC is a typical example of this. Have you actually read JSP777? All it does is describe what NEC is and just about touches on what it hopes to achieve. Any 4th year apprentice can tell you this as knowledge of it, and the process by which it is achieved, is inextricably linked to his pay. (A good incentive). And there’s the rub. Nowhere does the JSP mention how it will be achieved or if it is funded. Not surprising really, given the number of senior MoD staff who BOTH (a) don’t know and (b) think it’s a waste of money. (Do you see the solution?). Oh, and the books describing the process (which is what most DPA/DLO staff actually need to know) are up for cancellation next month. But don’t despair. Last updated in May 1991, anyone deemed suitably qualified to manage (what is now known as) NEC was issued with personal copies, which I sincerely hope he will retain (now that the rest are retired/dead/left DPA).
Some good news - John Reid apparently hates Buff Hoon for the mess he has handed over. That gives him something in common with the boys and girls in uniform!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmh
We have heard the same. Apparently AH will be kept in the hangars with flying rates/spares reduced as it is too expensive to go anywhere (rumoured that treasury block all orbats that include AH).
So from the looks of it the mighty AH will end up under RAF control (no Lynx no AAC) and be used as an Emergency Service for the biggy conflicts where the treasury will suddenly find a pot of gold.
How foolish - but if that's the way they want to play it don't expect my usual enthusiasm, loyalty and working all hours/separation from family etc.
It is now just a job isn't it - no amount of hard work and separation from family will ever balance the continued overwhelming reduction in resources - can it?
We have heard the same. Apparently AH will be kept in the hangars with flying rates/spares reduced as it is too expensive to go anywhere (rumoured that treasury block all orbats that include AH).
So from the looks of it the mighty AH will end up under RAF control (no Lynx no AAC) and be used as an Emergency Service for the biggy conflicts where the treasury will suddenly find a pot of gold.
How foolish - but if that's the way they want to play it don't expect my usual enthusiasm, loyalty and working all hours/separation from family etc.
It is now just a job isn't it - no amount of hard work and separation from family will ever balance the continued overwhelming reduction in resources - can it?
Jess
“Interoperability is the longest dirty word there is!”.
Dead on. And in 2001 it was officially pulled from the flagship programme which was relying entirely on NEC. Rendering it more like a punctured rubber dinghy. Yes, someone with good intent put it in the URD but then a bean counter asked “So what’s the MoD’s policy on interoperability?”. (None of course). “Well then, you’re not getting the dosh”. Gross inexperience, lack of scrutiny and oversight, abrogation etc etc – just makes it easy for the Treasury.
Eng
My point was that almost everyone in the MoD (and the press) has known of the budgetary problems and their causes since, at the very latest, 2002 when we were all briefed. And most responded, “What’s new, we’ve known since 97” (in the case of RAB). I suspect we agree on this. There’s an age-old dilemma which any Requirement Manager recognises - If there’s a 100% probability of a risk occurring, you’re not allowed to call it a risk. So, if you don’t deal with it up front and it’s not in the risk register, what chance has your successor got?
“Interoperability is the longest dirty word there is!”.
Dead on. And in 2001 it was officially pulled from the flagship programme which was relying entirely on NEC. Rendering it more like a punctured rubber dinghy. Yes, someone with good intent put it in the URD but then a bean counter asked “So what’s the MoD’s policy on interoperability?”. (None of course). “Well then, you’re not getting the dosh”. Gross inexperience, lack of scrutiny and oversight, abrogation etc etc – just makes it easy for the Treasury.
Eng
My point was that almost everyone in the MoD (and the press) has known of the budgetary problems and their causes since, at the very latest, 2002 when we were all briefed. And most responded, “What’s new, we’ve known since 97” (in the case of RAB). I suspect we agree on this. There’s an age-old dilemma which any Requirement Manager recognises - If there’s a 100% probability of a risk occurring, you’re not allowed to call it a risk. So, if you don’t deal with it up front and it’s not in the risk register, what chance has your successor got?
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My view is that the problems go back much further than most people think. My theory is based purely on answers to questions I have asked and my interpretation of events I have personally witnessed.
Back in the early to mid 90's I heard from more than one very senior Air Officer, (at formal briefings and usually at Stations that were closing!) that it didn't matter how many different defence cuts there would be over the next 30 years or so. They suspected that we were in for a very long period of unsettled change. They had a long term plan to survive any circumstances!!
I sincerely believe that the ultimate long-term goal is to try and keep a small mass of criticality together so that in the extremely unlikely event of hostilities to the homeland we will introduce conscription. The critical mass will keep the home fires burning so that the forces can be ramped up to war levels over a number of months thus saving UK PLC a lot of cash in the process. The numbers I heard mentioned for the RAF were not far from where we will be soon and that was unthinkable back in 94.
I suspect that this plan has been followed meticulously, the years of overstretch make it easy to keep our seat on the security council whilst at the same time ensuring a steady outflow that continually exceeds recruitment. One set of cuts follows another and it hasn't been political party specific has it? HMG, MOD and senior military officers have all planned to bring us where we are today. World events post 9/11 have merely assisted the overall plan and perhaps even accelerated the process. A process that is leading to a deliberate run down of our Armed Forces not seen since the 30’s.
There is of course just one small problem that those who would live in 1955 haven't foreseen. A majority of youth today will never submit to conscription in any form for any reason and will ultimately give any one who tries it a bloody nose. There are strong arguments out here in civvy street that we do not have any further requirements whatsoever for a large standing Armed Force. Obviously I don't subscribe to that view but I can assure you that it does exist in huge quantities both in Government and on the shop floor. I suspect that the recent bad press is being deliberately orchestrated to achieve these aims using the well-proven tool of convenient leaks.
As maroon man says history repeats itself and I sincerely hope that we are not in the early 1930's part of the cycle. We can do nothing to resolve the problems except hope that common sense will eventually prevail. But I will not hold my breath!!!
Back in the early to mid 90's I heard from more than one very senior Air Officer, (at formal briefings and usually at Stations that were closing!) that it didn't matter how many different defence cuts there would be over the next 30 years or so. They suspected that we were in for a very long period of unsettled change. They had a long term plan to survive any circumstances!!
I sincerely believe that the ultimate long-term goal is to try and keep a small mass of criticality together so that in the extremely unlikely event of hostilities to the homeland we will introduce conscription. The critical mass will keep the home fires burning so that the forces can be ramped up to war levels over a number of months thus saving UK PLC a lot of cash in the process. The numbers I heard mentioned for the RAF were not far from where we will be soon and that was unthinkable back in 94.
I suspect that this plan has been followed meticulously, the years of overstretch make it easy to keep our seat on the security council whilst at the same time ensuring a steady outflow that continually exceeds recruitment. One set of cuts follows another and it hasn't been political party specific has it? HMG, MOD and senior military officers have all planned to bring us where we are today. World events post 9/11 have merely assisted the overall plan and perhaps even accelerated the process. A process that is leading to a deliberate run down of our Armed Forces not seen since the 30’s.
There is of course just one small problem that those who would live in 1955 haven't foreseen. A majority of youth today will never submit to conscription in any form for any reason and will ultimately give any one who tries it a bloody nose. There are strong arguments out here in civvy street that we do not have any further requirements whatsoever for a large standing Armed Force. Obviously I don't subscribe to that view but I can assure you that it does exist in huge quantities both in Government and on the shop floor. I suspect that the recent bad press is being deliberately orchestrated to achieve these aims using the well-proven tool of convenient leaks.
As maroon man says history repeats itself and I sincerely hope that we are not in the early 1930's part of the cycle. We can do nothing to resolve the problems except hope that common sense will eventually prevail. But I will not hold my breath!!!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc
I suspect that we are in furious agreement as usual but I think that the difference now is:
"Whitehall sources have now disclosed that a new round of cuts is looming with spending on 15 key projects, which were expected to cost a total of at least £40 billion over the next decade, having to be cut to £22 billion. "
2 programmes that I have been involved in have been in free fall since before Xmas. They are expecting to be cut and are not being worked at all, technically they still exist on the book. If they survive then you look at a years delay to introduce resource to re-start, the indecision is crippling. Would the decisions have been announced if there had not been an election, I'm with the sceptics on that one.
That dirty word does have a policy now in the JSP600 series. Unfortunately, it is poorly written and difficult to implement on mobile networks in small platforms. I also had similar arguments about cuts to fund NEC because it was reliant on the enemy falling over in accordance with the business case. if they did not play the game then you had precious little reserve to sustain the fight. Will NEC work, the JTRS programme that is the US enabler is already in trouble:
http://www.fcw.com/article88751-05-02-05-Print
Can we buy back the assets that ew have shed if the enabler does not work?
Regards
Retard
I suspect that we are in furious agreement as usual but I think that the difference now is:
"Whitehall sources have now disclosed that a new round of cuts is looming with spending on 15 key projects, which were expected to cost a total of at least £40 billion over the next decade, having to be cut to £22 billion. "
2 programmes that I have been involved in have been in free fall since before Xmas. They are expecting to be cut and are not being worked at all, technically they still exist on the book. If they survive then you look at a years delay to introduce resource to re-start, the indecision is crippling. Would the decisions have been announced if there had not been an election, I'm with the sceptics on that one.
That dirty word does have a policy now in the JSP600 series. Unfortunately, it is poorly written and difficult to implement on mobile networks in small platforms. I also had similar arguments about cuts to fund NEC because it was reliant on the enemy falling over in accordance with the business case. if they did not play the game then you had precious little reserve to sustain the fight. Will NEC work, the JTRS programme that is the US enabler is already in trouble:
http://www.fcw.com/article88751-05-02-05-Print
Can we buy back the assets that ew have shed if the enabler does not work?
Regards
Retard
Guest
Posts: n/a
well, were did we honestly expect to get with this government? looks as if Dr Ried has been sent in as the caring MP with a shoulder to cry on. We are more likely to get a realistic defence expenditure out of this government (in line with GDP growth AT LEAST PR00ne) than I expect **** out of a rocking horse.
Thread Starter
No - too many thieving immigrants from Dementia and Godknowzwheristan to support, 12 year old sluts with brats to spoon feed, conceptual research focus groups to sponsor and an inefficient, over administered health service to bail out. Plus lots of huggy fluffy regulations to impose - and so-called schools to throw taxpayers' money at to bolster some lunatic 'performance indicators'.....
L is for Lies
L is for Labour
L is for Lies
L is for Labour