The Defense Budget - What would you do?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: On the edge of reality.
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Defense Budget - What would you do?
There is no doubt that the MoD is in both short and long term financial dire straits.
Would you be willing to take one for the team in the form of a 5% pay cut now to help fill the delta? This would be subject to a once only rebalance, across the board, with future pay rises (increments and AFPRB) unaffacted - ie you get your pay rise, but it would be a rise against the 5% lower level.
I would. I think that if we, corporately could make the offer it would demonstrate to the public the importance we all attach to maintaining our capability and our belief of how damaging cuts at this particular juncture would be. It would generate debate, push defense spending to the forefront of the public's mindset and give the people with defense a justifiable ownership of our future equipment programme.
As a second question, does anybody working in the area know what the saving would be - in total for defence and for the three individual commands?
Of note an interesting point on QT last night - Every penny of income tax is spent on the welfare system. Everything else is funded from indirect taxation. Perhaps all welfare payments should be cut by 5% aswell!
Would you be willing to take one for the team in the form of a 5% pay cut now to help fill the delta? This would be subject to a once only rebalance, across the board, with future pay rises (increments and AFPRB) unaffacted - ie you get your pay rise, but it would be a rise against the 5% lower level.
I would. I think that if we, corporately could make the offer it would demonstrate to the public the importance we all attach to maintaining our capability and our belief of how damaging cuts at this particular juncture would be. It would generate debate, push defense spending to the forefront of the public's mindset and give the people with defense a justifiable ownership of our future equipment programme.
As a second question, does anybody working in the area know what the saving would be - in total for defence and for the three individual commands?
Of note an interesting point on QT last night - Every penny of income tax is spent on the welfare system. Everything else is funded from indirect taxation. Perhaps all welfare payments should be cut by 5% aswell!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what effect a hold on promotions for 5 years would have on the MOD's wages budget. We could afford to 'lose' a fairly large chunk of Wg Cdr (and upwards) bods from the RAF too.
The rank structure of the RAF could be changed.
Maybe (Hahaha) a Flight Commander could be a Flt Lt instead of a Sqn Ldr
or a Squadron Commander could be a Sqn Ldr instead of a Wg Cdr
There could be Group Captains in charge of Groups instead of Air Commodores.
Close bases in the south of the UK where the real workers of the RAF cannot afford a house, and rebuild/reopen bases in the North, and then apply a windfall tax on Annington Homes for the southern MQs.
And Finally to save the biggest amount of money:
The nearest Service establishment to the Houses of Parliament should have a large Premier Inn style block built with 635 rooms. (better still let the MPs live in NORMAL barrack accomodation - then they can live the same way as living-in Service Personnel) All MPs can stay there, and all second homes allowances can be scrapped. No need to pay them extra £400/month for food, as they will be able to get 'home' for food.
Maybe (Hahaha) a Flight Commander could be a Flt Lt instead of a Sqn Ldr
or a Squadron Commander could be a Sqn Ldr instead of a Wg Cdr
There could be Group Captains in charge of Groups instead of Air Commodores.
Close bases in the south of the UK where the real workers of the RAF cannot afford a house, and rebuild/reopen bases in the North, and then apply a windfall tax on Annington Homes for the southern MQs.
And Finally to save the biggest amount of money:
The nearest Service establishment to the Houses of Parliament should have a large Premier Inn style block built with 635 rooms. (better still let the MPs live in NORMAL barrack accomodation - then they can live the same way as living-in Service Personnel) All MPs can stay there, and all second homes allowances can be scrapped. No need to pay them extra £400/month for food, as they will be able to get 'home' for food.
Would I be willing? No, not really. Pay cuts and freezes only work in the private sector when a companies future is potentialy at stake. This is because ultimatimtely all private sector companies are profit making organisations. Loosing 5% of your pay is better than loosing your job.
Here in the public sector, we are paid from the defence budget. The best you could hope for is that the money you donate back would be spent on something useful. I can't say I approve of this though, as it would be tantamount to making guys buy their own ammunition on ops, or fuel, or food, or body armour.
More likely however is that the cash would ultimately end up being wasted away trying to make DIIII work, or auditing travel claims. I get paid less than my civilian counterpart already, I can't see that widening that gap would aid retention much.
So essentialy........No. But maybe I'm just jack
Here in the public sector, we are paid from the defence budget. The best you could hope for is that the money you donate back would be spent on something useful. I can't say I approve of this though, as it would be tantamount to making guys buy their own ammunition on ops, or fuel, or food, or body armour.
More likely however is that the cash would ultimately end up being wasted away trying to make DIIII work, or auditing travel claims. I get paid less than my civilian counterpart already, I can't see that widening that gap would aid retention much.
So essentialy........No. But maybe I'm just jack
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sandhurst
Age: 50
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you propose this for ranks in the higher earning bracket? Or for all ranks? I can't see it going down very well with a Cpl with 2 children in married quarters, yet alone one with a mortgage.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe (Hahaha) a Flight Commander could be a Flt Lt instead of a Sqn Ldr
or a Squadron Commander could be a Sqn Ldr instead of a Wg Cdr
or a Squadron Commander could be a Sqn Ldr instead of a Wg Cdr
Have been watching Wimbledon and there seem to be an awful lot of uniforms hanging about. Coldstream Guards just signed a One Million pound recording contract. Hundreds of service personnel on Public Duties.
Maybe a reassessment of the priorities would not go amiss. Bit hard to convince the public we are hurting when stuff like the above goes on and men and women are losing their jobs and homes every day.
The 'Publicity' argument no longer washes I am afraid. With the recession, the CIOs are bulging at the seams.
I know I will get shot down in flames but it is about time we thought long and hard about the bells and whistles activities.
If not, we are ripe for plucking and 'totally plucked' we will be!
Maybe a reassessment of the priorities would not go amiss. Bit hard to convince the public we are hurting when stuff like the above goes on and men and women are losing their jobs and homes every day.
The 'Publicity' argument no longer washes I am afraid. With the recession, the CIOs are bulging at the seams.
I know I will get shot down in flames but it is about time we thought long and hard about the bells and whistles activities.
If not, we are ripe for plucking and 'totally plucked' we will be!
Mr Hinecap.
I think the Blunty jibes should be left back in the Cold War, don't you? There are far more people out on the ground in The Stan putting their lives on the line at the moment, so your purile sense of self worth is a little out of place.
I think the Blunty jibes should be left back in the Cold War, don't you? There are far more people out on the ground in The Stan putting their lives on the line at the moment, so your purile sense of self worth is a little out of place.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mod Budget - What's To Be Done?
I am ex RAF and joined up in 1979 during Maggie's tenure as PM. Then the RAF was c. 117,000 (not sure of the exact no but its close enough). I left in the post Cold War options for change in 1989 and have few regrets...
Even back then there were Defence Cuts. Remember John Nott? Then came the Falklands War. Suddenly the Forces were needed and to be fair, losses and attrition in that war were made good, something that can't be said today
.
Then came the end of the Cold War and the toppling of the Berlin Wall and this was an excuse for further cuts in the so-called "options for change" review. I recall this being sold to us on the basis of "more teeth and less tail". Then came Croatia, Bosnia, Balkans Ops and the first war that NATO got involved with in Europe. The world suddenly seemed a less stable place to be.
This then is followed by GW1, GW2 and now Afganistan. Where next? Korea, Iran, Pakistan? There's still a lot of "un-finished business" and the withdrawal from Iraq and the peace in Northern Ireland doesn't take away the need for substantial armed forces in the future if we as a country wish to exert ANY influence on the world stage. We need to be credable in forums such as the UN (esp as a permanent member of the security council), NATO, the G8 etc. etc.
The bottom line is we in the armed forces don't set the agenda. Our political masters decide where they want (need) us but don't ever give us either the right tools or sufficient quantity to get the job done properly. It is a case of "more butter or less bread" and I suspect again it will be neither.
Politically it would be suicidal for us to pull out of AFG and allow Al Quaida to re-group and then mount attacks against Western interests on our "home" soil - what would happen to Pak and how would that threaten India? India is important economically (almost as much as China) to the world and what would that do to future world trade?
We are now spending c. 2.5% of GDP on the defence and protection of this country at a time when the external threats we face are real and unlikely to go away. I'm not necessarily meaning a State-on-State conflict but more of the kind we faced in Malaya in the 1950's when counter-insurgency was first encountered. The big problem is a weak political leadership, unwilling to heed the advice of its military advisors, and a Treasury which interferes with "bean counters" dictating policies not just within the MOD but also within the NHS, Education etc. etc.
The £1BN extra cost for the "future carrier" project is largely due to delays to the original procurement schedule and not due to the contractor.
The real question is that 2.5% of GDP is not a realistic figure to fund the armed forces if we are to have Trident, be able to mount "expeditionary" warefare ops, and conduct a war in AFG 3,000 miles from home. Either we, as a country accept a "border protection force" as being the limits of our global presence (or should I say pretence?) OR we agree to fund the armed forces with say 4-5% of GDP and do so on a long-term basis.
4-5% I would argue is both sustainable and appropriate. We waste too much money on things like the Millennium Dome, 2012 Olympics and MP's expenses! That said, MOD procurement needs to sharpen up to cut the waste on Nimrod, A400M etc. But these cost over-runs are perhaps inevitable if the original design criteria is cost and not based on a performance spec. Also, we lose all ecoomies of scale if we don't stick to the original numbers. 6 T45's instead of 12. 12 MR4's instead of 18 etc. We were able to fund the armed forces at this level even in the "austere" post-war period in the 1950's (remember Suez?) what's so different today?
What really irks me now is that even combat losses are not being made up with attrition orders for aircraft that have been lost on ops coupled with the removal (prematurely) of other much-valued assets which had been bought and paid for and still useful in the ORBAT. (Jaguar, Sea Harrier).
Part of the blame though does however rest with out own Service "top brass". A collective protest or notice to offer their resignations, unless resources match the "ask", would get a lot of attention and gain serious respect from their troops. Bring back military hospitals, stop base closures (Lyneham, Coltishall, Scampton, St. Mawgan.......)
Rant over.....MB out!
Even back then there were Defence Cuts. Remember John Nott? Then came the Falklands War. Suddenly the Forces were needed and to be fair, losses and attrition in that war were made good, something that can't be said today
.Then came the end of the Cold War and the toppling of the Berlin Wall and this was an excuse for further cuts in the so-called "options for change" review. I recall this being sold to us on the basis of "more teeth and less tail". Then came Croatia, Bosnia, Balkans Ops and the first war that NATO got involved with in Europe. The world suddenly seemed a less stable place to be.
This then is followed by GW1, GW2 and now Afganistan. Where next? Korea, Iran, Pakistan? There's still a lot of "un-finished business" and the withdrawal from Iraq and the peace in Northern Ireland doesn't take away the need for substantial armed forces in the future if we as a country wish to exert ANY influence on the world stage. We need to be credable in forums such as the UN (esp as a permanent member of the security council), NATO, the G8 etc. etc.
The bottom line is we in the armed forces don't set the agenda. Our political masters decide where they want (need) us but don't ever give us either the right tools or sufficient quantity to get the job done properly. It is a case of "more butter or less bread" and I suspect again it will be neither.
Politically it would be suicidal for us to pull out of AFG and allow Al Quaida to re-group and then mount attacks against Western interests on our "home" soil - what would happen to Pak and how would that threaten India? India is important economically (almost as much as China) to the world and what would that do to future world trade?
We are now spending c. 2.5% of GDP on the defence and protection of this country at a time when the external threats we face are real and unlikely to go away. I'm not necessarily meaning a State-on-State conflict but more of the kind we faced in Malaya in the 1950's when counter-insurgency was first encountered. The big problem is a weak political leadership, unwilling to heed the advice of its military advisors, and a Treasury which interferes with "bean counters" dictating policies not just within the MOD but also within the NHS, Education etc. etc.
The £1BN extra cost for the "future carrier" project is largely due to delays to the original procurement schedule and not due to the contractor.
The real question is that 2.5% of GDP is not a realistic figure to fund the armed forces if we are to have Trident, be able to mount "expeditionary" warefare ops, and conduct a war in AFG 3,000 miles from home. Either we, as a country accept a "border protection force" as being the limits of our global presence (or should I say pretence?) OR we agree to fund the armed forces with say 4-5% of GDP and do so on a long-term basis.
4-5% I would argue is both sustainable and appropriate. We waste too much money on things like the Millennium Dome, 2012 Olympics and MP's expenses! That said, MOD procurement needs to sharpen up to cut the waste on Nimrod, A400M etc. But these cost over-runs are perhaps inevitable if the original design criteria is cost and not based on a performance spec. Also, we lose all ecoomies of scale if we don't stick to the original numbers. 6 T45's instead of 12. 12 MR4's instead of 18 etc. We were able to fund the armed forces at this level even in the "austere" post-war period in the 1950's (remember Suez?) what's so different today?
What really irks me now is that even combat losses are not being made up with attrition orders for aircraft that have been lost on ops coupled with the removal (prematurely) of other much-valued assets which had been bought and paid for and still useful in the ORBAT. (Jaguar, Sea Harrier).
Part of the blame though does however rest with out own Service "top brass". A collective protest or notice to offer their resignations, unless resources match the "ask", would get a lot of attention and gain serious respect from their troops. Bring back military hospitals, stop base closures (Lyneham, Coltishall, Scampton, St. Mawgan.......)
Rant over.....MB out!
Guest
Posts: n/a
What would I do
Its very easy to argue amongst ourselves about what we should cut but if you put us alongside other Government departments I think there is a case that the pain should lie elsewhere.
At the risk of sounding like a Daily Mail reader, if you really want to save serious cash here are my big five:
1. Get a grip of Social Security. I have every sympathy for those who want to work or have recently lost their jobs. However, there are many who have been brought up with the belief that you get something for nothing. Also, look at the sacred cows - should everyone get universal Child Benefit? In short, the Social Security system should be a safety net only because whether we like it or not, we cannot afford it.
2. Get a grip of the compensation culture and rebalance risk adversion. At the very least, put a cap on compensation and stop the ludicrous payouts in all but very specific circumstances. Am I the only one who thinks that it is the Lawyers who need to take a good look at themselves?
3. Admit the pension timebomb. Raise the state pension age and let people work longer if they want. Undo the pension tax on dividend payments that has destroyed what was an excellent private pension system. Make saving for retirement compulsory and a proportion of income.
4. As for the armed forces. Decide whether we are a global player, a contributor to coalition efforts or a simple home defence force and resource appropriately. If they want us to carry on as a global player then we need more money. In which case, stop arguing amongst ourselves and start fighting our corner.
5. Get rid of JPA. If only for the reason that noone else has said it as yet and I wanted to be the first.
Overall, I understand the sentiment behind taking a pay cut but I despair where that money would subsequently go.
Oh damn, I did sound like a Daily Mail reader didn't I?
At the risk of sounding like a Daily Mail reader, if you really want to save serious cash here are my big five:
1. Get a grip of Social Security. I have every sympathy for those who want to work or have recently lost their jobs. However, there are many who have been brought up with the belief that you get something for nothing. Also, look at the sacred cows - should everyone get universal Child Benefit? In short, the Social Security system should be a safety net only because whether we like it or not, we cannot afford it.
2. Get a grip of the compensation culture and rebalance risk adversion. At the very least, put a cap on compensation and stop the ludicrous payouts in all but very specific circumstances. Am I the only one who thinks that it is the Lawyers who need to take a good look at themselves?
3. Admit the pension timebomb. Raise the state pension age and let people work longer if they want. Undo the pension tax on dividend payments that has destroyed what was an excellent private pension system. Make saving for retirement compulsory and a proportion of income.
4. As for the armed forces. Decide whether we are a global player, a contributor to coalition efforts or a simple home defence force and resource appropriately. If they want us to carry on as a global player then we need more money. In which case, stop arguing amongst ourselves and start fighting our corner.
5. Get rid of JPA. If only for the reason that noone else has said it as yet and I wanted to be the first.
Overall, I understand the sentiment behind taking a pay cut but I despair where that money would subsequently go.
Oh damn, I did sound like a Daily Mail reader didn't I?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wyler
Have been watching Wimbledon and there seem to be an awful lot of uniforms hanging about. Coldstream Guards just signed a One Million pound recording contract. Hundreds of service personnel on Public Duties.
They are all on leave. The perk is to watch tennis.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bin Trident.
Too much money to replace a system we're never going to use. With more effective MOABs / cruise missiles, there is no justifictation for an un-targetted weapon that produces fallout over civilian poputations, both friendly and enemy.
I bet Bin Laden is quaking with fear that we would consider renewing Trident...
Also - chop DPA in its entirety, and restart procurement on the basis not of buying small amounts of do-it-all kit, but greater volumes of specialised, more cost effective kit (A330M should have been split as a dedicated tanker fleet and a dedicated transport fleet to minimise the costs involved):
- Eliminate most upper ranks in the RAF such that the size and structure is supportive of the assets operated
- Civilianise and outsource non-base admin functions
- Cancel A400M and buy 30 C17s now
- Buy transport-only aircraft off the shelf (A350s / 777s), maintained by BA/Virgin
- Buy more UAVs and integrate with JSF/Typhoon
- Re-establish NCO flight crew
- Cancel Nimrod and buy Poseidon...(bit late really now though)
- Ensure bases remain - it may be cheaper to "consolidate", but the flexibility is paramount
- Sort out the waste that is Annington Homes
Too much money to replace a system we're never going to use. With more effective MOABs / cruise missiles, there is no justifictation for an un-targetted weapon that produces fallout over civilian poputations, both friendly and enemy.
I bet Bin Laden is quaking with fear that we would consider renewing Trident...
Also - chop DPA in its entirety, and restart procurement on the basis not of buying small amounts of do-it-all kit, but greater volumes of specialised, more cost effective kit (A330M should have been split as a dedicated tanker fleet and a dedicated transport fleet to minimise the costs involved):
- Eliminate most upper ranks in the RAF such that the size and structure is supportive of the assets operated
- Civilianise and outsource non-base admin functions
- Cancel A400M and buy 30 C17s now
- Buy transport-only aircraft off the shelf (A350s / 777s), maintained by BA/Virgin
- Buy more UAVs and integrate with JSF/Typhoon
- Re-establish NCO flight crew
- Cancel Nimrod and buy Poseidon...(bit late really now though)
- Ensure bases remain - it may be cheaper to "consolidate", but the flexibility is paramount
- Sort out the waste that is Annington Homes
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Hinecap.
I think the Blunty jibes should be left back in the Cold War, don't you? There are far more people out on the ground in The Stan putting their lives on the line at the moment, so your purile sense of self worth is a little out of place.
I think the Blunty jibes should be left back in the Cold War, don't you? There are far more people out on the ground in The Stan putting their lives on the line at the moment, so your purile sense of self worth is a little out of place.
I was making a slightly tongue-in-cheek point that the non-flying world does things differently to the two-winged master race. I am sorry that my irony was, to you, just another metal, like coppery.
22/7,
Whilst your profile claims to be 2 miles away from Wreford's, are you actually in the UK military because Defence is spelt that way, not Defense.
Are you a Troll?? Explain yourself YANK!
Whilst your profile claims to be 2 miles away from Wreford's, are you actually in the UK military because Defence is spelt that way, not Defense.
Are you a Troll?? Explain yourself YANK!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Look through the other end of the telescope.
Joe Bloggs is a university student or unemployed and is a debt on the nation.
Tommy Atkins OTOH is not on the dole and although also a debt on the nation you may deduct his notional dole money, income tax and national insurance, and his other indirect taxes. The balance is therefore either neutral or a credit.
At the other end of the scale, your wg cdr would either be working and contributing the same as Tommy Atkins or retired with a big bucket of money and a substantial pension. One is a credit and the other a straight debit albeit with some taxes paid.
Either way, in the overall scheme of things, an employed serviceman is cheaper for the economy than a redundant one who still costs big bucks but is no longer productive.
Joe Bloggs is a university student or unemployed and is a debt on the nation.
Tommy Atkins OTOH is not on the dole and although also a debt on the nation you may deduct his notional dole money, income tax and national insurance, and his other indirect taxes. The balance is therefore either neutral or a credit.
At the other end of the scale, your wg cdr would either be working and contributing the same as Tommy Atkins or retired with a big bucket of money and a substantial pension. One is a credit and the other a straight debit albeit with some taxes paid.
Either way, in the overall scheme of things, an employed serviceman is cheaper for the economy than a redundant one who still costs big bucks but is no longer productive.