MoD must find over £1bn in savings
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1bn
You're all doing the politicians job for them. We need CVF, JSF, SSBN, FRES etc etc and we need money for the front line now. You don't cut the throat of one to feed the other. We need more money. Simple as.
Jaco for one winds me up, he's been banging a drum about CVF for years in the face of reasoned and INFORMED argument on this site. Perhaps start banging the drum about more cash.
Jaco for one winds me up, he's been banging a drum about CVF for years in the face of reasoned and INFORMED argument on this site. Perhaps start banging the drum about more cash.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hulahoop,
You may be right - more cash to fulfill all the Government's aspiration.
In the 60s the Tories were strapped for cash and had to rob peter to pay paul. When harold Wilson took over he too was strapped for cash and wanted to reduce commmitments to match available cash. He wanted to retain the Far East role and reduce the role in Germany; not quite sure why this was changed.
The come all the defence reviews, the Nott cuts, the Falklands and finally the ending of the first Cold War. With a peace dividend and options for change we had a defence review reorientating and resizing the defence forces.
Now after the Balkans, two Gulf wars and the Afghan war, not to mention Sierra Leone, and Government plans for power projection - CVS, SSBN etc, what we have not had is a Government Policy Review and a Defence Review.
Please can we have a match between aspiration and resource.
PS, as we have WW 1 and 2, GW 1 and 2, which AW should it be? 3rd or do we count the Russian one and call it 4th?
You may be right - more cash to fulfill all the Government's aspiration.
In the 60s the Tories were strapped for cash and had to rob peter to pay paul. When harold Wilson took over he too was strapped for cash and wanted to reduce commmitments to match available cash. He wanted to retain the Far East role and reduce the role in Germany; not quite sure why this was changed.
The come all the defence reviews, the Nott cuts, the Falklands and finally the ending of the first Cold War. With a peace dividend and options for change we had a defence review reorientating and resizing the defence forces.
Now after the Balkans, two Gulf wars and the Afghan war, not to mention Sierra Leone, and Government plans for power projection - CVS, SSBN etc, what we have not had is a Government Policy Review and a Defence Review.
Please can we have a match between aspiration and resource.
PS, as we have WW 1 and 2, GW 1 and 2, which AW should it be? 3rd or do we count the Russian one and call it 4th?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Never far from water
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VVC and theprior,
An unsubstantiated comment but it was said on the Beeb last week that more people are made redundant/laid off annually in UK than the total employed in the UK defence sector. If true, are there really 1.5M in the sector?
And with so many other UK businesses competing well on the global stage, why do we remain protectionist about the defence sector which almost operates as a monopoly?
An unsubstantiated comment but it was said on the Beeb last week that more people are made redundant/laid off annually in UK than the total employed in the UK defence sector. If true, are there really 1.5M in the sector?
And with so many other UK businesses competing well on the global stage, why do we remain protectionist about the defence sector which almost operates as a monopoly?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 years after I wrote a paper on the nonsense of each new piece of software being introduced with its own bespoke piece of hardware, we may be getting a one-per-desk solution.
The driver to my paper 10 years ago was 6 systems on one desk, stacked 2 deep.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS, as we have WW 1 and 2, GW 1 and 2, which AW should it be? 3rd or do we count the Russian one and call it 4th?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well when the last servicman leaves and turns off the lights the savings on the wages and lecky will more than cover what they are required to save.
Last one out flick the switch.
Last one out flick the switch.
Do you believe there could be a case argued to bring back RAuxAF flying Sqns?
You could have one fully manned ( and I mean fully manned ) Sqn supporting an Auxillary in terms of engineering / logistic support during the week/offtime.
Inreased ability of simulation could be a factor too, for the aircrew.
OK, so they may not be fully combat ready, but workups could be handled I'm sure.
You could have one fully manned ( and I mean fully manned ) Sqn supporting an Auxillary in terms of engineering / logistic support during the week/offtime.
Inreased ability of simulation could be a factor too, for the aircrew.
OK, so they may not be fully combat ready, but workups could be handled I'm sure.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabinet split over £15bn proposed defence cuts
From today's Gruniad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/s...221531,00.html
... may explain why a certain Defence Minister decided to go on a driving holiday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/s...221531,00.html
The rift has caused the Ministry of Defence to postpone publication of the latest 10-year industrial strategy on Thursday week because ministers admit current negotiations are ongoing and no agreement has been reached.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jagrigger,
Good idea young man. We already have a fair number of RAuxAF aircrew working around the place and I see no reason why we cant do better by engaging more ex RAF aircrew into the "oggies". It might be more difficult to train RAuxAF aircrew from scratch as was done in the good old days, but if the will is there....
Now what we want is a 2007 version of the Mosquito, made of carbon fibre and with turbo prop engines with off the shelf avionics. Cheap to build, easy to fly lots of payload in the way of bombs and rockets. Man them with RAuxAF aircrew and the problem is solved.
Discuss.
Good idea young man. We already have a fair number of RAuxAF aircrew working around the place and I see no reason why we cant do better by engaging more ex RAF aircrew into the "oggies". It might be more difficult to train RAuxAF aircrew from scratch as was done in the good old days, but if the will is there....
Now what we want is a 2007 version of the Mosquito, made of carbon fibre and with turbo prop engines with off the shelf avionics. Cheap to build, easy to fly lots of payload in the way of bombs and rockets. Man them with RAuxAF aircrew and the problem is solved.
Discuss.
And in today's Telegraph Online
Cabinet split over defence cuts
By Laura Clout
Last Updated: 7:48am GMT 04/12/2007
Plans to slash the defence budget by up to £15 billion over the next decade has caused a split in the Cabinet leading to the Ministry of Defence delaying the publication of its latest 10 year industrial strategy, due to be published next Thursday.
Overall spending on defence is due to rise from £34.1 billion next year to £36.9 billion in 2010, but Whitehall is said to be split over cuts which could include reducing the number of new Astute nuclear powered submarines being built at Barrow from eight to as few as four and cancelling orders for the seventh and eigth Type 45 frigate at Portsmouth or diverting them from the Royal Navy by selling them to the Malaysian navy.
The revelation, in a report by spending watchdogs on the cost of Britain's 20 biggest weapon projects, put the likely cost overrun at £2.5 billion out of a total bill of £28 billion
By Laura Clout
Last Updated: 7:48am GMT 04/12/2007
Plans to slash the defence budget by up to £15 billion over the next decade has caused a split in the Cabinet leading to the Ministry of Defence delaying the publication of its latest 10 year industrial strategy, due to be published next Thursday.
Overall spending on defence is due to rise from £34.1 billion next year to £36.9 billion in 2010, but Whitehall is said to be split over cuts which could include reducing the number of new Astute nuclear powered submarines being built at Barrow from eight to as few as four and cancelling orders for the seventh and eigth Type 45 frigate at Portsmouth or diverting them from the Royal Navy by selling them to the Malaysian navy.
The revelation, in a report by spending watchdogs on the cost of Britain's 20 biggest weapon projects, put the likely cost overrun at £2.5 billion out of a total bill of £28 billion
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Also from a recent DT letter, a quote from Winston Churchill in 1904:
Plus ca change ----
The Army is not like a limited liability company, to be reconstructed, remodelled, liquidated and refloated, from week to week, as the money market fluctuates. It is not an inaminate thing, like a house, to be pulled down or stucturally altered at the caprice of tenant or owner.
It is a living thing. If it is bullied, it sulks; if it is unhappy, it pines; if it is harried, it gets feverish; if it is sufficiently disturbed, it will wither and dwindle and almost die; and when it comes to this last serious condition it is only to be revived by lots of time and lots of money
It is a living thing. If it is bullied, it sulks; if it is unhappy, it pines; if it is harried, it gets feverish; if it is sufficiently disturbed, it will wither and dwindle and almost die; and when it comes to this last serious condition it is only to be revived by lots of time and lots of money
Risk - reward ..... how much is your life worth to Brown et al
Yet more cuts in the pipeline ? Well I suppose we shouldn't expect much more from this champagne socilaist 'regime' who is quite happy to exist under the freedom guaranteed by the forces whilst simulateously amputating huge chunks of capability at a whim to fund god know what ill conceived and poorly managed bureacratic nightmare.
Give today's report on the Nimrod incident (which I suspect has led to the lawyers rubbing their hands in glee at prospect of a negligence case - and in this instance, I am more than happy for the dogs to be released against the MOD) it is about time we asked - and got an answer to the important question - just what value does this government put on the life of an individual?
I'm well aware that defence is not a vote winner, but that wasting billions on dole scroungers, immigrants and propping up the NHS and welfare systems is a vote winner. But the decision to constantly cut funding comes with risks of systemic failure and catastrophic incidents which may - and have - lead to the loss of countless lives. Given how devious Brown & Browne et al are and how this country is now driven by the bottom line on a profit / loss statement, they will have worked out how much of a risk they can take with their enforced cuts and subsequent erosion of capability with its attendent risks to OUR - not yours Brown - OUR lives, and what the return is likely to be for the risk. So here it is, bottom line - the risk reward question:
IIRC, BP reckoned in terms of a negligence pay out, the value of one of their employees was ~$20M before they would go to court and argue or pay out to improve facilities, standards, procedures etc. What specific numerical value has this government assigned in terms of votes and cold hard cash to an individual serviceman's life?
Give today's report on the Nimrod incident (which I suspect has led to the lawyers rubbing their hands in glee at prospect of a negligence case - and in this instance, I am more than happy for the dogs to be released against the MOD) it is about time we asked - and got an answer to the important question - just what value does this government put on the life of an individual?
I'm well aware that defence is not a vote winner, but that wasting billions on dole scroungers, immigrants and propping up the NHS and welfare systems is a vote winner. But the decision to constantly cut funding comes with risks of systemic failure and catastrophic incidents which may - and have - lead to the loss of countless lives. Given how devious Brown & Browne et al are and how this country is now driven by the bottom line on a profit / loss statement, they will have worked out how much of a risk they can take with their enforced cuts and subsequent erosion of capability with its attendent risks to OUR - not yours Brown - OUR lives, and what the return is likely to be for the risk. So here it is, bottom line - the risk reward question:
IIRC, BP reckoned in terms of a negligence pay out, the value of one of their employees was ~$20M before they would go to court and argue or pay out to improve facilities, standards, procedures etc. What specific numerical value has this government assigned in terms of votes and cold hard cash to an individual serviceman's life?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MoD 'in cuckoo-land' over project funds
Telegraph
It looks like we're short of about £3 billion!
I wonder which projects will be axed soon?
It looks like we're short of about £3 billion!
The Ministry of Defence was "living in cloud-cuckoo-land" in believing it could achieve all its major procurement projects, the head of the Commons' defence committee has said.
In a damning hearing on the MoD's equipment programme, the military was forced to concede it "did not know" whether cash would be available for major projects.
Defence analysts believe the MoD is facing a £3 billion shortfall out of £19 billion in funding for hardware vital to ensuring Britain's global position at the "top table".
In a damning hearing on the MoD's equipment programme, the military was forced to concede it "did not know" whether cash would be available for major projects.
Defence analysts believe the MoD is facing a £3 billion shortfall out of £19 billion in funding for hardware vital to ensuring Britain's global position at the "top table".
Gen Kevin O'Donoghue was the first official to publicly suggest that one of the military's major defence projects faced the axe.
Among the projects in disarray is the "stand-off" over the £4 billion aircraft carrier programme announced with great fanfare by the Government last year.
Among the projects in disarray is the "stand-off" over the £4 billion aircraft carrier programme announced with great fanfare by the Government last year.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble is that, where contracts have already been signed, not much money will be saved by their cancellation - just look at Typhoon. So regardless of what Gordo says, my guess is that it will be projects that haven't reached contract signature will be axed. FSTA possibly, but not much capital outlay will be saved by axing that project - in fact axing it may force more short term spending.
Another thing. Don't you have to look at the CVF and JSF as a system? What good is one without the other? You might be able to get on with Harrier for a few years, but committing to CVF will eventually force commitment to JSF.
So if Gordo really is committed to CVF, stand by for more cuts to SLAM, CEA, pay and allowances etc.....
As Admiral Boyce said, there'll be "blood on the floor" in the MOD.
Another thing. Don't you have to look at the CVF and JSF as a system? What good is one without the other? You might be able to get on with Harrier for a few years, but committing to CVF will eventually force commitment to JSF.
So if Gordo really is committed to CVF, stand by for more cuts to SLAM, CEA, pay and allowances etc.....
As Admiral Boyce said, there'll be "blood on the floor" in the MOD.
Last edited by LFFC; 30th Jan 2008 at 17:03.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
‘Black’ mood at overwhelmed ministry
‘Black’ mood at overwhelmed ministry - FT 28 Apr 08
How very depressing! 
Britain’s defence ministry faces its most severe funding crunch in three decades, leaving its strategy towards the industry in disarray and the armed forces stretched to the limit.
According to people with close knowledge of the department, the crisis has come to a head after building up for more than a decade.
According to people with close knowledge of the department, the crisis has come to a head after building up for more than a decade.
The article is pretty much spot on - and could have been written any time in the last few years. In particular, rumour has it that the inability to comply with the Defence Industrial Strategy is one of the main stumbling blocks on FRES. Well, it's a bit of a howler saying we must have an indigenous capability after decades of running down the British engineering industry, isn't it?