Tories Want To Slash MoD Costs By 25%
Probably more pertinent to remind ourselves that in the immediate aftermath the lack of sufficient troop lift was recognised, and the procurement of over 50 "Commando" Merlins approved to augment the (then very new) Sea King Mk4 fleet.
As we know, this was cancelled by the Tory Government in the early 90s. It also says much about Labour that they have constantly taken the hit on this subject over the last few years and not made political capital out of the above decision. Like MoD, they have too many butterflies that flit in and out of jobs, with no long term strategy or corporate memory. I'm afraid the political colour won't make much difference.
As we know, this was cancelled by the Tory Government in the early 90s. It also says much about Labour that they have constantly taken the hit on this subject over the last few years and not made political capital out of the above decision. Like MoD, they have too many butterflies that flit in and out of jobs, with no long term strategy or corporate memory. I'm afraid the political colour won't make much difference.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tigwas, if you wanted to start a cost-cutting discussion, you'd be better proposing disbanding the Paras and giving (what is left) of their role entirely to RM as UK lead attack troops and UKSF support.
Firstly, there is no role nowadays for mass insertion of airborne troops by static line parachute. Only 1 Para is now parachute operational - and that is arguably only to maintain some sort of experience for those who eventually pass UKSF selection and are selected for 22 Air Troop. 1 Para's UKSF support role could be taken over by RM.
The RM is already substantially larger than the Parachute regiments combined - approximately four times last time I worked it out - so administratively and culturally it would be easier to merge Paras into RM than vice versa. There is plenty of cost cutting to be made in the support services to the two arms - eg RE, REME, RA all provide services to both the RM and Paras. RN provide medical/admin/skypilot services to the RM, Army provide the same services to the paras - lots of duplication therein.
Firstly, there is no role nowadays for mass insertion of airborne troops by static line parachute. Only 1 Para is now parachute operational - and that is arguably only to maintain some sort of experience for those who eventually pass UKSF selection and are selected for 22 Air Troop. 1 Para's UKSF support role could be taken over by RM.
The RM is already substantially larger than the Parachute regiments combined - approximately four times last time I worked it out - so administratively and culturally it would be easier to merge Paras into RM than vice versa. There is plenty of cost cutting to be made in the support services to the two arms - eg RE, REME, RA all provide services to both the RM and Paras. RN provide medical/admin/skypilot services to the RM, Army provide the same services to the paras - lots of duplication therein.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid the political colour won't make much difference.
Last edited by CirrusF; 8th Oct 2009 at 20:02.
delusional
Given this has never been applied to any project manager since, I suggest DE&S try enforcing it now - that would account for THEIR contribution to the overall 25%.
Firstly, there is no role nowadays for mass insertion of airborne troops by static line parachute.
Arnhem
Suez
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Peterborough
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not put something into place to get rid of the people who are in the Redeployment Pool.
Sitting around not being able to do the job you have been doing for years is just boring as hell. Or put it another way, getting paid for doing thing!!
Sitting around not being able to do the job you have been doing for years is just boring as hell. Or put it another way, getting paid for doing thing!!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continuing with the Corporate RM contribution
Not forgetting the M&AW Cadre at Top Malo House and Naval Party 8901 who opposed the Argentine assault.
If you adopted the 'first in; last out' argument concerning Royal and the Paras (as it is so loved in the FAA vs RAF debate), you'll find that the Duke of York & Albany's Maritime Regiment of Foot showed it's hand in Kronenbourg time (1664), so only a bit of a precendent there.
If you adopted the 'first in; last out' argument concerning Royal and the Paras (as it is so loved in the FAA vs RAF debate), you'll find that the Duke of York & Albany's Maritime Regiment of Foot showed it's hand in Kronenbourg time (1664), so only a bit of a precendent there.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Essex
Age: 39
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Example:If world war breaks out in IRAN and we have to invade to hold up freedom and libert (Im merely playing up to the spin on Iran in the media), how would we do it?
Carrier Strike and Amphibious landings from the Persian Gulf? Surely we need to update our carriers and supplementary Naval FW. Also we would be much better placed if our only troops were UKSF and Royal Marines.
Surely you need to be equipped as a nation for the inevitable especially when you are envied by many and hated by more due to our Governments involvement/alliance with the USA?
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This really does make interesting reading.
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Tories 'to cut MoD costs by 25%'
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Tories 'to cut MoD costs by 25%'
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cutting 25% of the cost(s) of the MoD? Easypeasy:
Bring home and rehabilitate the 9,000 (or whatever) troops from Afghanistan.
Bring home and rehabilitate the 20,000 (or whatever) troops from Germany.
Chop the Blaircraft carriers.
Chop JSF.
Chop V-boat replacements.
Flog half the 'phoon fleet to the Saudis or somesuch mugs.
Seemples.
Bring home and rehabilitate the 9,000 (or whatever) troops from Afghanistan.
Bring home and rehabilitate the 20,000 (or whatever) troops from Germany.
Chop the Blaircraft carriers.
Chop JSF.
Chop V-boat replacements.
Flog half the 'phoon fleet to the Saudis or somesuch mugs.
Seemples.
Jordan
Poor example to support the carrier argument I'm afraid.
Plenty of friendly countries in the region, with lots of space on their airfields, within easy reach of Eye-ran, and who are all terrified at the prospect of a nuclear state next door, and who would offer up host nation facilities at the blink of an eye.
Granted, for an amphibious assault you would need the smaller ships but we've got them in sufficient numbers (I think - granted you can never have enough of anything useful but lets be realistic here
).
The most useful asset in a conflict with Iran will most likely be the V boats, if for no other reason than to keep any conflict "conventional".
Just my view of course.
Poor example to support the carrier argument I'm afraid.
Plenty of friendly countries in the region, with lots of space on their airfields, within easy reach of Eye-ran, and who are all terrified at the prospect of a nuclear state next door, and who would offer up host nation facilities at the blink of an eye.
Granted, for an amphibious assault you would need the smaller ships but we've got them in sufficient numbers (I think - granted you can never have enough of anything useful but lets be realistic here
).The most useful asset in a conflict with Iran will most likely be the V boats, if for no other reason than to keep any conflict "conventional".
Just my view of course.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News
He said: "Frederick Duke of York was preparing for the Napoleonic threat between 1792 and 1804 he increased the size of the Army from 50,000 to nearly 500,000 - and he did it with 38 staff at Horse Guards.
He said: "Frederick Duke of York was preparing for the Napoleonic threat between 1792 and 1804 he increased the size of the Army from 50,000 to nearly 500,000 - and he did it with 38 staff at Horse Guards.
Is that intended to demonstrate the Doctor’s total grasp of modern warfare?
Savings might be achievable in the MoD if we didn’t have hordes of eager people trying to hammer 3 Service (although you can probably now call that 2) supply chains into a single, one size fits all, “purple” (with a very rich “red” hue) one.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: S England
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning All
AA
It actually depends on what the primary objective was. However, I do concede that my poorly put thoughts got a bashing.
GPMG
You are right. Let me put this another way. The FI was a major amphibious operation. During that operation many units who were not AW specialists performed exceedingly well - actually it was brilliantly well. Now move on to today. With that in mind, do we today need a specialist AW Service with its own Rank structure, training, support, Staffing chain etc etc? I use the RM as an example of the size and nature of cuts I belive will have to be made if 25% savings are to be had. The same arguments go for Carriers, Paras, CAS, JSF etc etc.
It is clear from the reaction to my inelegantly put suggestions what future discussions will be like at MOD and during future staff courses as single service interests come to the fore. I surmise that if the 3 Service chiefs cannot present a genuinely purple solution then divide and rule will be the order of the day by the Government of the day. More importantly, the Conservatives will be listening to Dannatt and therefore unless a tri service agreement is reached the solution will have a slightly more brown colouring than the RAF and RN would like.
I guess that over the next few years the expression likely to be used in the corridors of power will be 'Dammit Dannatt'
Tigwas
AA
It actually depends on what the primary objective was. However, I do concede that my poorly put thoughts got a bashing.
GPMG
You are right. Let me put this another way. The FI was a major amphibious operation. During that operation many units who were not AW specialists performed exceedingly well - actually it was brilliantly well. Now move on to today. With that in mind, do we today need a specialist AW Service with its own Rank structure, training, support, Staffing chain etc etc? I use the RM as an example of the size and nature of cuts I belive will have to be made if 25% savings are to be had. The same arguments go for Carriers, Paras, CAS, JSF etc etc.
It is clear from the reaction to my inelegantly put suggestions what future discussions will be like at MOD and during future staff courses as single service interests come to the fore. I surmise that if the 3 Service chiefs cannot present a genuinely purple solution then divide and rule will be the order of the day by the Government of the day. More importantly, the Conservatives will be listening to Dannatt and therefore unless a tri service agreement is reached the solution will have a slightly more brown colouring than the RAF and RN would like.
I guess that over the next few years the expression likely to be used in the corridors of power will be 'Dammit Dannatt'
Tigwas
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that our politicalmasters seem to have missed the crucial element here - staff costs form just a minor part of the MoD allocation from HMG (unlike Health, HMRC etc). Most of our budget is tied up in the Equipment Programme (or in supporting its output). Just look as the last set of MoD accounts: removing ALL the MoD civil service (plus Minsters and Special Advisors) will make an 8% budgetary saving (before redundancy payments are factored in). Getting rid of all MoD personnel will make it possible to achieve approx 26-27% savings!!!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Wrathmonk, while I would agree that Jordan's argument is flawed, I would suggest that we could not count on 'friendly' countries where we are presently deployed.
They are only 'friendly' where is serves their self-interest. If they do not preceive Iran as a relevant threat then they would not necessarily permit basing and operations from their territory. I believe Turkey was a case in point at one time and Kyrgystan another.
Jordan was wrong because the Gulf is simply to constrained for fleet operations and shipping would be most vulnerable in the Straits of Hormuz. Any carrier strike groups would need to stand well clear in the Arabian Sea and be over 1000 miles from Tehran.
Iran is a wholly different prospect from Iraq and larger than Afghanistan with a much more developed defensive system. This is not to say that it would be an impossible task, simply that the task would be considerably greater than the invasion of Iraq.
Any military adventure would probably have very limited and hopefully be low cost and thus 'affordable'.
They are only 'friendly' where is serves their self-interest. If they do not preceive Iran as a relevant threat then they would not necessarily permit basing and operations from their territory. I believe Turkey was a case in point at one time and Kyrgystan another.
Jordan was wrong because the Gulf is simply to constrained for fleet operations and shipping would be most vulnerable in the Straits of Hormuz. Any carrier strike groups would need to stand well clear in the Arabian Sea and be over 1000 miles from Tehran.
Iran is a wholly different prospect from Iraq and larger than Afghanistan with a much more developed defensive system. This is not to say that it would be an impossible task, simply that the task would be considerably greater than the invasion of Iraq.
Any military adventure would probably have very limited and hopefully be low cost and thus 'affordable'.
