MOD to be cut by 25%: Coalition says.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E3
Has everyone forgotten that the E3D is not being particularly useful at the moment. In fact the servicability rate is still shocking, as it has been on and off for the past few years.
If anything deserves the chop, why not the E3 fleet. Then you will have space at Waddo for the MRA4 which may prove more useful in the long term. After all, Typhoon could probably do just as well without it.
As for GR4, the are some massive obselesence issues in keeping it in service until 2025. The aren't the 1970's computing parts available any more to maintain it's systems and this will result in a fleet wide avionics upgrade which won't be cheap.
I say scrap GR4, C130J, E3 and FSTA. Let's face it, you proably won't see an FSTA on a towline as DTMA will get priority for use as a transport to save on charter fees. Put probe and drogue on A400 and use that as a tanker, keep JSF and sell as many Typhoons to the Middle East as possible.
Let's face it we cannot be a 1st team player anymore, we are too broke. Our membership of NATO needs to be our defence; an attack on one is an attack on all. That's what we pay for in all the cash that goes to NATO.
Frustrated....I sure am.
If anything deserves the chop, why not the E3 fleet. Then you will have space at Waddo for the MRA4 which may prove more useful in the long term. After all, Typhoon could probably do just as well without it.
As for GR4, the are some massive obselesence issues in keeping it in service until 2025. The aren't the 1970's computing parts available any more to maintain it's systems and this will result in a fleet wide avionics upgrade which won't be cheap.
I say scrap GR4, C130J, E3 and FSTA. Let's face it, you proably won't see an FSTA on a towline as DTMA will get priority for use as a transport to save on charter fees. Put probe and drogue on A400 and use that as a tanker, keep JSF and sell as many Typhoons to the Middle East as possible.
Let's face it we cannot be a 1st team player anymore, we are too broke. Our membership of NATO needs to be our defence; an attack on one is an attack on all. That's what we pay for in all the cash that goes to NATO.
Frustrated....I sure am.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lossiemouth
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So am I
It's very frustrating.
However, I too agree it might be time for the Swing Wing Death Bird to swing her wings for one final time and bow out gracefully when things are going well for her.
The GR4 has served us well, but with a realisation that we cannot continue to provide the defence capability we one enjoyed; something has to dip out.
The fact is that the GR4 is a very expensive beast, which can no longer hold it's own at the high end. If we can't play with the bigger boys, then we can't play at all.
The GR9 is the deaf, dumb and blind kid - but it does preserve capability for the future when times may be a little easier on the defence budget. I'm ex GR4, but the GR9 gets my vote. I see it like planting a tree - it's investing in the future for UK PLC.
Rough times ahead.
However, I too agree it might be time for the Swing Wing Death Bird to swing her wings for one final time and bow out gracefully when things are going well for her.
The GR4 has served us well, but with a realisation that we cannot continue to provide the defence capability we one enjoyed; something has to dip out.
The fact is that the GR4 is a very expensive beast, which can no longer hold it's own at the high end. If we can't play with the bigger boys, then we can't play at all.
The GR9 is the deaf, dumb and blind kid - but it does preserve capability for the future when times may be a little easier on the defence budget. I'm ex GR4, but the GR9 gets my vote. I see it like planting a tree - it's investing in the future for UK PLC.
Rough times ahead.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: london
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark (we must stop meeting like this)
I had planned to gve you a long answer on each of your points, but it would be wasted (on both of us!). I just happen to believe that there needs to be something more than 2 small squadrons of Harriers between now and the arrival of JCA and MR Typhoon (about 2018). I understand why you make the arguments you do, but I don't think you have seen the unintended consequences of your force design (for they are far worse than just seen through the prism of trained maritime crews). I just hope that those making the decisions do, or I will be coming back here in a few years saying I told you so. The impact on the training pipeline, in particular, could be catastrophic, let alone the loss of capability at a critical period - if the News is anything to go by.
I will just have to accept that you believe that the RAF should have given up cockpits for the men and women they recruited and trained, just to help the RN's unsustainable manning model (although we have done just that) - it was so obviously an RAF plot to look after our own manning requirement; what were we thinking!
You are correct in saying that the GR9 crews remaining will feel very left down (in both Services), but no more so than the Sea Harrier, Jaguar and F3 crews that have gone before them as OSD and cuts approach; and Tornado GR4 will not be very far behind. It is always a very sad day as we see our combat power whittled away, but we will have to be hard nosed not emotional if we are to survive the next 8 years.
I had planned to gve you a long answer on each of your points, but it would be wasted (on both of us!). I just happen to believe that there needs to be something more than 2 small squadrons of Harriers between now and the arrival of JCA and MR Typhoon (about 2018). I understand why you make the arguments you do, but I don't think you have seen the unintended consequences of your force design (for they are far worse than just seen through the prism of trained maritime crews). I just hope that those making the decisions do, or I will be coming back here in a few years saying I told you so. The impact on the training pipeline, in particular, could be catastrophic, let alone the loss of capability at a critical period - if the News is anything to go by.
I will just have to accept that you believe that the RAF should have given up cockpits for the men and women they recruited and trained, just to help the RN's unsustainable manning model (although we have done just that) - it was so obviously an RAF plot to look after our own manning requirement; what were we thinking!
You are correct in saying that the GR9 crews remaining will feel very left down (in both Services), but no more so than the Sea Harrier, Jaguar and F3 crews that have gone before them as OSD and cuts approach; and Tornado GR4 will not be very far behind. It is always a very sad day as we see our combat power whittled away, but we will have to be hard nosed not emotional if we are to survive the next 8 years.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Knife-fight in a telephone box"
Defence chiefs argue over 50,000 staff cuts
Let's not forget that nearly a quarter of the MOD pay bill goes to civilians. During 2007/08, military pay accounted for £9.3b and civilian pay was £2.8b. Defence Statistics Bulletin 10 - Page 32
Defence Personnel Totals 2009
UK Service Personnel - 187,210
UK Civilian Personnel - 86,970
So my guess is that at least a third of that 50,000 should be from the civil service, but if the unions stand their ground........
According to the Financial Times, the pressure to make cuts is exposing “clear fault lines” between the three services. One defence source told the paper: “This is a knife-fight in a telephone box and Saturday [24 July] was the first round before we regroup and go at it again.”
The Army has offered to cut back on fast jets and an aircraft carrier, in contrast to Navy efforts to keep the same carrier and the fleet of Harrier jets that use them. Meanwhile the Air Force is also fighting calls to cut the Tornado fleet.
However, personnel levels are expected to be cut by as many as 50,000 people - or a quarter - according to the Treasury, because personnel costs across the forces are such a large slice of the defence budget.
The Army has offered to cut back on fast jets and an aircraft carrier, in contrast to Navy efforts to keep the same carrier and the fleet of Harrier jets that use them. Meanwhile the Air Force is also fighting calls to cut the Tornado fleet.
However, personnel levels are expected to be cut by as many as 50,000 people - or a quarter - according to the Treasury, because personnel costs across the forces are such a large slice of the defence budget.
Let's not forget that nearly a quarter of the MOD pay bill goes to civilians. During 2007/08, military pay accounted for £9.3b and civilian pay was £2.8b. Defence Statistics Bulletin 10 - Page 32
Defence Personnel Totals 2009
UK Service Personnel - 187,210
UK Civilian Personnel - 86,970
So my guess is that at least a third of that 50,000 should be from the civil service, but if the unions stand their ground........
Last edited by LFFC; 27th Jul 2010 at 00:15.
Most civil servants I know are expecting cuts of about 20% to their head counts (a CS of roughly 65000). This is everything including the RFA, security guards, MPGS, all the teachers, training staff and support staff, plus industrial workers at the many bases and ammunition and storage deports out there. Its not just office workers!
Don't forget though that as its significantly more expensive to employ a service person than a CS, due to the much higher capitation rates, the savings gained from firing CS are minimal. You'll save in year, but not for much longer than that. Additionally many of the CS jobs are ex military roles that were civillianised to save money - thats why the CS seems so large, because the military footprint was transferred to save money years ago.
Don't forget though that as its significantly more expensive to employ a service person than a CS, due to the much higher capitation rates, the savings gained from firing CS are minimal. You'll save in year, but not for much longer than that. Additionally many of the CS jobs are ex military roles that were civillianised to save money - thats why the CS seems so large, because the military footprint was transferred to save money years ago.
