The PPrune Comprehensive Spending Review
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PPrune Comprehensive Spending Review
Since the Comprehensive Spending Review doesn't seem to take much notice of the needs of those on the frontlines and seems to have been carried out on a Friday afternoon by a Civil Servant with no knowledge of the military, perhaps it's time to tell people what we want and need to do our jobs. Think about what you write too since it needs a realistic approach. Also, what don't we need and what would the saving be? This may be like Fantasy Football, but someone might be reading it. People need to realise that the military is an expensive business and war makes it even more so.
So - what's it to be???
So - what's it to be???
OK I'll start, at the beginning.....
I would, like the flying system to start with a military owned, military operated, military serviced Flying Training system whether that be EFT/BFT/AFT or Grading/BFT/AFT. Based on sufficient airfields so that weather implications are reduced and there is sufficient airspace for all to get what they need. Closing anymore of the current FTUs ISN'T the best start!!!
Next.
I would, like the flying system to start with a military owned, military operated, military serviced Flying Training system whether that be EFT/BFT/AFT or Grading/BFT/AFT. Based on sufficient airfields so that weather implications are reduced and there is sufficient airspace for all to get what they need. Closing anymore of the current FTUs ISN'T the best start!!!
Next.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Less cheapo Carling/Grolsh. More Wobbly/Stella.
The saving would be significant. No more taxi rides into town. My wallet would feel much healthier.
Maybe they could chase up that bus load of nurses which set out in 1963, too?
The saving would be significant. No more taxi rides into town. My wallet would feel much healthier.
Maybe they could chase up that bus load of nurses which set out in 1963, too?
Actually. On second thoughts I would like a CAS, CINCAIR and ACAS who would say to the bean counters:
"No. We will not be setting any savings targets this year, or next year, or again. There is nothing left". "Oh, we are going to be £56M overspent this FY? Tough. It may have something to do with fighting 2 wars and it is only what the NHS overspend each month so it can't be an issue."
"No. We will not be setting any savings targets this year, or next year, or again. There is nothing left". "Oh, we are going to be £56M overspent this FY? Tough. It may have something to do with fighting 2 wars and it is only what the NHS overspend each month so it can't be an issue."
As the first phase of the Pprune comprehensive spending review, we should focus on strategic capability.
It is proposed that the capability known as Minister for the Armed Forces, currently delivered under Project AINSWORTH, be withdrawn from use and not replaced.
AINSWORTH's somewhat limited intellectual capabilities have been a matter of concern for some time, but the recent combat performance when ambushed by Newsnight forces under Jeremy Paxman ('Which part of the question don't you understand, Minister?') illustrated that this piece of equipment is obsolete and unsuited for the current operating environment; maintaining it is merely a burden on the services who will hardly notice its departure.
The second capability area of concern is that known as Sec of State. Under project BROWNE, the government sought to deliver incredulity to the battlespace.
BROWNE provided the notable second order effects of 'earnestness' and 'generally well-meaning but hasn't a scooby about the area he's responsible for'. It became clear that despite much investment, this capability was operating at maximum capacity, exposing its critical vulnerabilities, particularly during Op IPOD when the capability illustrated that BROWNE's @rse from elbow identification programming had been incorrectly set at the factory. Correcting this error would be prohibitively expensive.
Recent electoral developments led to the requirement for project BROWNE to be double-hatted, stretching (but not overstretching, mark you) the capability beyond its limitations, raising further questions about its viability.
It is therefore proposed that a replacement capability be sought with some urgency. Project FOX appears as if it has some promise based on SIGINT and HUMINT sources active in Blackpool last week. Sources suggest that a defence capability might be on offer from project ZIMMER, but ISTAR assests have yet to find any credible evidence of this. FOX appears to be the best option in the medium term, and efforts to procure this should be begin immediately.
The final area of capability that requires urgent attention is that under the auspices of project PRUDENCE, currently in the early months of its released to service under Case Yellow Belly. PRUDENCE, despite attempts to bring a fresh pair of eyes to the problem suffers from several flaws in addition to the fact that 'pair' is an overstatement in the ocular aspect. It has become painfully clear that the programming logic employed to deliver PRUDENCE is fundamentally flawed, and is defaulting to the operating system 'Blair Chancellor 1.0', thus leading to an inability to appreciate that fighting two wars simultaneously requires more investment.
Initial investigations suggest that this system error can only be rectified with the use of Microsoft ELECTION 2007. However, PRUDENCE appears to have the capability to overwrite crucial elements of ELECTION 2007. Therefore, a UOR to obtain ELECTION 2008, currently being rolled out in the United States is underway, with Microsoft providing a unique UK setting to enable the programme to function on JPA terminals. Mr Gates reports that the requirement to use JPA may force the delivery of ELECTION 2009, which while a sub-optimal solution may be the best options.
It is the conclusion of the review that Project PRUDENCE does not provide the defence capability necessary for the United Kingdom in the current strategic environment, and it is recommended that Project CAMERON be employed as soon as possible. It should be noted that CAMERON is an untried option, and procuring this capability will have to be taken at risk.
It is proposed that the capability known as Minister for the Armed Forces, currently delivered under Project AINSWORTH, be withdrawn from use and not replaced.
AINSWORTH's somewhat limited intellectual capabilities have been a matter of concern for some time, but the recent combat performance when ambushed by Newsnight forces under Jeremy Paxman ('Which part of the question don't you understand, Minister?') illustrated that this piece of equipment is obsolete and unsuited for the current operating environment; maintaining it is merely a burden on the services who will hardly notice its departure.
The second capability area of concern is that known as Sec of State. Under project BROWNE, the government sought to deliver incredulity to the battlespace.
BROWNE provided the notable second order effects of 'earnestness' and 'generally well-meaning but hasn't a scooby about the area he's responsible for'. It became clear that despite much investment, this capability was operating at maximum capacity, exposing its critical vulnerabilities, particularly during Op IPOD when the capability illustrated that BROWNE's @rse from elbow identification programming had been incorrectly set at the factory. Correcting this error would be prohibitively expensive.
Recent electoral developments led to the requirement for project BROWNE to be double-hatted, stretching (but not overstretching, mark you) the capability beyond its limitations, raising further questions about its viability.
It is therefore proposed that a replacement capability be sought with some urgency. Project FOX appears as if it has some promise based on SIGINT and HUMINT sources active in Blackpool last week. Sources suggest that a defence capability might be on offer from project ZIMMER, but ISTAR assests have yet to find any credible evidence of this. FOX appears to be the best option in the medium term, and efforts to procure this should be begin immediately.
The final area of capability that requires urgent attention is that under the auspices of project PRUDENCE, currently in the early months of its released to service under Case Yellow Belly. PRUDENCE, despite attempts to bring a fresh pair of eyes to the problem suffers from several flaws in addition to the fact that 'pair' is an overstatement in the ocular aspect. It has become painfully clear that the programming logic employed to deliver PRUDENCE is fundamentally flawed, and is defaulting to the operating system 'Blair Chancellor 1.0', thus leading to an inability to appreciate that fighting two wars simultaneously requires more investment.
Initial investigations suggest that this system error can only be rectified with the use of Microsoft ELECTION 2007. However, PRUDENCE appears to have the capability to overwrite crucial elements of ELECTION 2007. Therefore, a UOR to obtain ELECTION 2008, currently being rolled out in the United States is underway, with Microsoft providing a unique UK setting to enable the programme to function on JPA terminals. Mr Gates reports that the requirement to use JPA may force the delivery of ELECTION 2009, which while a sub-optimal solution may be the best options.
It is the conclusion of the review that Project PRUDENCE does not provide the defence capability necessary for the United Kingdom in the current strategic environment, and it is recommended that Project CAMERON be employed as soon as possible. It should be noted that CAMERON is an untried option, and procuring this capability will have to be taken at risk.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any spending or capability cuts in this pruning will be accompanied by similar reductions in political and international mouthmusic so that force reductions are equated with military task reductions.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bin the Civil Serpents, Moist Pratts and Naval/General/Air Rank final pensions schemes for starters
That would remove the algebraic reduction formulae which is used to screw the other ranks pensions which are syphoned off to benefit the spongers, single mothers and the Inland Revenue
That would remove the algebraic reduction formulae which is used to screw the other ranks pensions which are syphoned off to benefit the spongers, single mothers and the Inland Revenue
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland said:
Actually. On second thoughts I would like a CAS, CINCAIR and ACAS who would say to the bean counters:
"No. We will not be setting any savings targets this year, or next year, or again. There is nothing left". "Oh, we are going to be £56M overspent this FY? Tough. It may have something to do with fighting 2 wars and it is only what the NHS overspend each month so it can't be an issue."
Actually. On second thoughts I would like a CAS, CINCAIR and ACAS who would say to the bean counters:
"No. We will not be setting any savings targets this year, or next year, or again. There is nothing left". "Oh, we are going to be £56M overspent this FY? Tough. It may have something to do with fighting 2 wars and it is only what the NHS overspend each month so it can't be an issue."
What is going to be interesting, is to see the response to these latest cuts. CAS has stated his opposition to more cuts, as recently as the other week, and he has been ignored. What he does now will be a test of his mettle. What has become apparant, is that the custodians of the military brand are not up to the job. In many ways, its not their fault.. they don't have the experience or the connections to take on the Civil Service or the g'ment. I'm sure CAS is superb still, in a cockpit, but this isn't his natural battlespace.. I don't care how many courses they attend.. they'll get outflanked everytime by The Establishment.
EWe can't trust the politicians with Defence of the Realm, thats for sure. So who looks after things.. who is there to ensure that Mational Security stays above partisan politik? This g'ment is sublime at fobbing off rsponsibility.. see what they did to the Bank of England and the Education Curriculam and Standards body more recently.
Please, lets have an independant body, with clout, standing up for the troops.
" take on the Civil Service or the g'ment!"
Lets be clear here, we're not talking about the MOD CS - we're talking about the most despised bunch of CS ever - the Treasury. If you think they're bad to us, you should see how they are to some other OGD's!
Lets be clear here, we're not talking about the MOD CS - we're talking about the most despised bunch of CS ever - the Treasury. If you think they're bad to us, you should see how they are to some other OGD's!
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about all the grown-ups sit around a table and agree what it is they want us to do, what we need to do it and then fit it all in to a workable number of bases that are SUITABLY redeveloped for their new use.
I am so fed up with the message 'yessir, we can do that, but only if x,y,z happens first' being changed to 'yessir, no problems'. I am all for us being efficient, but we must invest something if we are to make all these changes work - 'leadership' is abused by the military to make up for the inadequacies of funding and realism...
I am so fed up with the message 'yessir, we can do that, but only if x,y,z happens first' being changed to 'yessir, no problems'. I am all for us being efficient, but we must invest something if we are to make all these changes work - 'leadership' is abused by the military to make up for the inadequacies of funding and realism...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the problem is - or at least appears to be - that the cutbacks and drawdowns are coming thick and fast with no clear impression of what the desired endstate will be. From the 'shop floor' it all seems very unstructured and reactionary.
I agree with the above comment - the grown ups ought to get together and formulate a plan for the size, shape and disposition of our armed forces in, say, 2015. The plan needs to be backed up with a comprehensive justification for any cuts to be made - and a solid defence for why it isn't any smaller!!!. Then they need to ensure that the plan is given widest possible publicity internally and where appropriate externally.
At the moment, it comes across as if the government are trimming from the armed forces on the basis that savings need to be made and they'll cut cutting away until it starts to hurt! Not good for capability or morale!
I agree with the above comment - the grown ups ought to get together and formulate a plan for the size, shape and disposition of our armed forces in, say, 2015. The plan needs to be backed up with a comprehensive justification for any cuts to be made - and a solid defence for why it isn't any smaller!!!. Then they need to ensure that the plan is given widest possible publicity internally and where appropriate externally.
At the moment, it comes across as if the government are trimming from the armed forces on the basis that savings need to be made and they'll cut cutting away until it starts to hurt! Not good for capability or morale!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter Oborne's new book is an almost must read to have an insight into why things happen nowadays, as they do.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/revie...180030,00.html
He's not perfect, not by a long stretch, but he comments neatly on this issue of public bodies morphing and almost merging as one with the political establishment. And its worrying. When Broone bought in Lords Alan West to the Home Office, to become Under Secretary of State for Security, and Ara Darzi to be minister for the NHS, he was epitomising everything that appears to be wrong at the moment with how this country is being run. None of us elected either of them those 2 for key posts (for that matter, we didn't elect Charlie Faulkener either), and they may be ok in the jobs.. but we didn't elect them, and no one thought to give a damn. Neither of them has any mandate whatsoever.. neither has stomped the hustings, and forgive me.. but isn't that what democracy should be about?
But its in our military genepool.. we are conditioned from the outset to say 'yes sir' and only then wonder how in the name of god we can ever achieve such a thing. We want to be the person to achieve the objective and its a true measure of our democracy that we at all times remember that we are subordinate to our political masters. But there has to be a reaestablishment of old values, there has to be. On my FT course, I remember the group needs/mission needs Vs individal needs tewts and I would venture cautiously, that those need to be reexamined by those at the top. The likes of Healey, Heath, Callaghan et al may have been just as crap at handling the economy, but they spoke with the experience of life, and they had fire within them. This lot by contrast, is educated, groomed, coached, urbane and smiles a lot. So combine that with integrity and credibility and in theory at least, we should be able to take on the world.
But the current coiffured crop has to fall back upon, apart from the superficial. Oborne contends that those who seek to guide others in life, will have no experience of it themselves (paradoxically, tha appts of West and Darzi were announcd specifically to counter that, and to further undermine accountability). They've never managed a budget or a large institution or served in the armed forces, but they're happy to despatch troops into battle underfunded, ill equipped and poorly motivated. Its the ultimate arrogance. I'm not an anti establishment freak, I don't believe in any conspiracy theory that I know of and I was incredibly proud and feel so honoured to have served in the RAF Regiment, but I despair more and more of what this country is becoming. I wish more than anything, we had people in positions of public accountability and scrutiny who remember WHO they are really paid to represent. At the present, we are being ignored with an almost criminal indifference by just about anyone who thinks they can get away with it.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/revie...180030,00.html
He's not perfect, not by a long stretch, but he comments neatly on this issue of public bodies morphing and almost merging as one with the political establishment. And its worrying. When Broone bought in Lords Alan West to the Home Office, to become Under Secretary of State for Security, and Ara Darzi to be minister for the NHS, he was epitomising everything that appears to be wrong at the moment with how this country is being run. None of us elected either of them those 2 for key posts (for that matter, we didn't elect Charlie Faulkener either), and they may be ok in the jobs.. but we didn't elect them, and no one thought to give a damn. Neither of them has any mandate whatsoever.. neither has stomped the hustings, and forgive me.. but isn't that what democracy should be about?
But its in our military genepool.. we are conditioned from the outset to say 'yes sir' and only then wonder how in the name of god we can ever achieve such a thing. We want to be the person to achieve the objective and its a true measure of our democracy that we at all times remember that we are subordinate to our political masters. But there has to be a reaestablishment of old values, there has to be. On my FT course, I remember the group needs/mission needs Vs individal needs tewts and I would venture cautiously, that those need to be reexamined by those at the top. The likes of Healey, Heath, Callaghan et al may have been just as crap at handling the economy, but they spoke with the experience of life, and they had fire within them. This lot by contrast, is educated, groomed, coached, urbane and smiles a lot. So combine that with integrity and credibility and in theory at least, we should be able to take on the world.
But the current coiffured crop has to fall back upon, apart from the superficial. Oborne contends that those who seek to guide others in life, will have no experience of it themselves (paradoxically, tha appts of West and Darzi were announcd specifically to counter that, and to further undermine accountability). They've never managed a budget or a large institution or served in the armed forces, but they're happy to despatch troops into battle underfunded, ill equipped and poorly motivated. Its the ultimate arrogance. I'm not an anti establishment freak, I don't believe in any conspiracy theory that I know of and I was incredibly proud and feel so honoured to have served in the RAF Regiment, but I despair more and more of what this country is becoming. I wish more than anything, we had people in positions of public accountability and scrutiny who remember WHO they are really paid to represent. At the present, we are being ignored with an almost criminal indifference by just about anyone who thinks they can get away with it.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: As far away from work as possible
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still to receive a credible explanation for why Air Ranks should retire on full pay. What have they done that we haven't to deserve such a wopping pay out. Unfortunately, cutting the number of Air Ranks won't solve the problem as they still get paid the same......
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose its one of those outdated notions that harks back to an earlier time when war was invariably imminant? You know.. like the times when travel warrants were granted to singlies to get them home, when scalies didn't have to pay food if they went on courses, when administrators administrated, when supply was open at lunchtime and when you needed something, you didn't have to try and convince a chuffing civilian.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know.. like the times when travel warrants were granted to singlies to get them home, when scalies didn't have to pay food if they went on courses, when administrators administrated, when supply was open at lunchtime and when you needed something, you didn't have to try and convince a chuffing civilian.
Rather than a military that has been systematically denigrated and derided by a press that does not like nor care for a military unless it makes for good video or pictures to sell their product. A military that has been systematically undermined and eroded by a bunch of short sighted, self serving cowards most of whom would never give anything of themselves for as little as they reward the current military. A military that lacks the respect of the general populace as a result of the two factors above yet will continue to expect them to fill in for any job that some work dodging union member won't do for their current over-inflated salary and benefits.
I remember the former... Unfortunately, I believe I saw the beginning of the latter too... The very thing that helped put the "Great" in Great Britain is being destroyed by those who would live in the glow of the the name without an inkling of understanding as to what it means... Quite sickening really...
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I'm still to receive a credible explanation for why Air Ranks should retire on full pay. What have they done that we haven't to deserve such a wopping pay out. Unfortunately, cutting the number of Air Ranks won't solve the problem as they still get paid the same......
Gentleman Aviator
I think you are wrong. Their pensions are calculated differently to Air Cdre and below, but they don't retire on full pay.
A full pension (at 55 or after 34 years qualifying service) equates to 48.5% ... of a "representative pay for the rank" which - in all the cases I have looked at - is the top rate.
Ergo, if you're not on the top rate, you'll still get 48.5% of it, which may well be 50% - or higher!! - than what you are actually earning (well, being paid!
) if you are fairly new to the rank............ ain't resettlement briefings fun.......
Of course 5-stars I believe in theory never retire, so they get full pay I guess - not many of them left though......
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope,the representative level is normally a mid-rate. For example, on AFPAS 75, a Major/Sqn Ldr/Lt Cdr would retire on a percentage of Level 5 (9 levels) Major pay. 28.5 % at 38/16, 48.5 % at 55 I think, something like that anyway....