Help focus the cuts on the right areas
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VV,
I agree with you reference the E3. It went to Herrick last year and offered very little in terms of additional capability. There are too many issues that prevent it from being able to provide the same level of C2 as say 1ACC.
Despite what folk on here might think, there are not enough ABMs knocking around. The FI commitment is not going away and Herrick numbers are on the increase at the moment. We struggle to support the UK commitment too. Binning the E3 would save us a fortune in maintaining airframes that do very little for UK PLC and would release the manpower into the main ASACS hub, kicking and screaming no doubt.
Has to be done IMHO.
I agree with you reference the E3. It went to Herrick last year and offered very little in terms of additional capability. There are too many issues that prevent it from being able to provide the same level of C2 as say 1ACC.
Despite what folk on here might think, there are not enough ABMs knocking around. The FI commitment is not going away and Herrick numbers are on the increase at the moment. We struggle to support the UK commitment too. Binning the E3 would save us a fortune in maintaining airframes that do very little for UK PLC and would release the manpower into the main ASACS hub, kicking and screaming no doubt.
Has to be done IMHO.
Mandator
I believe DEFCONs and DEFSTANs covered these points.
Vortexadminman
I agree with your comment re. the IPTs insofar as there are far too many civilian 'timeservers' wasting rations there. Both Mrs FZ and I spent time in an IPT and were appalled at the time-wasting and job-protection that went on with very little regard to the frontline/end user. For instance, working late(whilst not on Flexitime) or getting work done (correctly) too quickly was frowned on as it "reflected badly" on others. Needless to say our stay in the Civil Service was short as our patience and tempers could only take so much! There were some good people there but they were dragged down by the bureacratic jobsworths.
I believe DEFCONs and DEFSTANs covered these points.
Vortexadminman
I agree with your comment re. the IPTs insofar as there are far too many civilian 'timeservers' wasting rations there. Both Mrs FZ and I spent time in an IPT and were appalled at the time-wasting and job-protection that went on with very little regard to the frontline/end user. For instance, working late(whilst not on Flexitime) or getting work done (correctly) too quickly was frowned on as it "reflected badly" on others. Needless to say our stay in the Civil Service was short as our patience and tempers could only take so much! There were some good people there but they were dragged down by the bureacratic jobsworths.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FF,
don't be a knob.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that the E3 is a luxury the RAF can ill afford at the moment.
It went to theatre and burned holes in the sky without doing anything massively productive. 1ACC could have done the same thing at a fraction of the cost and no doubt will in the future.
don't be a knob.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that the E3 is a luxury the RAF can ill afford at the moment.
It went to theatre and burned holes in the sky without doing anything massively productive. 1ACC could have done the same thing at a fraction of the cost and no doubt will in the future.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
London Evening Standard: Army troop levels to be slashed by a quarter
The size of the British Army is set to be slashed by almost 25 per cent under proposals being discussed today in what would be the most radical defence shake-up in more than 150 years.
The Army's fighting strength will be cut from 98,000 to just 75,000, half the figure when it fought Desert Storm in 1991, the Standard has learned.
The cuts — part of a massive defence spending review and the coalition's latest austerity measures — will also see trained professional military personnel in all three services cut to about 150,000 by 2014, down from 177,000.
Also under scrutiny for the possible axe are big-ticket items of new equipment, such as the projects for new aircraft carriers, a new class of frigate, the Joint Strike Fighter and a new family of fighting vehicles.
The move, amid a mounting British death toll and polls which claim most voters want an end to the nine-year-old war, would result in the biggest Army shake-up since the Crimean War.
It is known David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne are looking for an immediate 10 per cent cut in defence spending and resources. The Treasury has suggested current defence expenditure must be cut by a third of its present level within three years......
Spending on keeping the UK military force of just under 10,500 in Afghanistan has been guaranteed until this time next year. It is now understood No 10 wants Britain to quit combat operations there by the end of 2013 at the latest......
The Ministry of Defence officials have worked for the past year on 42 studies of major areas of expenditure. These are to be reduced to 12 policy choices, which will be measured against the amount of money available over the next five to 10 years. The final settlement for defence will be announced in September.
Last week officials were told their proposed cuts in the 42 studies were not deep enough and they should prepare more radical ones.....
The size of the British Army is set to be slashed by almost 25 per cent under proposals being discussed today in what would be the most radical defence shake-up in more than 150 years.
The Army's fighting strength will be cut from 98,000 to just 75,000, half the figure when it fought Desert Storm in 1991, the Standard has learned.
The cuts — part of a massive defence spending review and the coalition's latest austerity measures — will also see trained professional military personnel in all three services cut to about 150,000 by 2014, down from 177,000.
Also under scrutiny for the possible axe are big-ticket items of new equipment, such as the projects for new aircraft carriers, a new class of frigate, the Joint Strike Fighter and a new family of fighting vehicles.
The move, amid a mounting British death toll and polls which claim most voters want an end to the nine-year-old war, would result in the biggest Army shake-up since the Crimean War.
It is known David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne are looking for an immediate 10 per cent cut in defence spending and resources. The Treasury has suggested current defence expenditure must be cut by a third of its present level within three years......
Spending on keeping the UK military force of just under 10,500 in Afghanistan has been guaranteed until this time next year. It is now understood No 10 wants Britain to quit combat operations there by the end of 2013 at the latest......
The Ministry of Defence officials have worked for the past year on 42 studies of major areas of expenditure. These are to be reduced to 12 policy choices, which will be measured against the amount of money available over the next five to 10 years. The final settlement for defence will be announced in September.
Last week officials were told their proposed cuts in the 42 studies were not deep enough and they should prepare more radical ones.....
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lincs
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contracting - FATS
FZ: DEFCONS and DEFSTANS cover all these points, but wasn't the idea behind FATS that these would all be agreed up front, along with manhour rates etc. Those companies pitching for safety-related work (including airworthiness) had to pre-qualify to show that they were able to meet the required standards for skill, knowledge and experience etc. When a task was required it was supposed to be only a matter of the applicable contractors tendering their solution and manhour costs against an ITT/SOR; effectively, there would be a mini-competition for each contract, but with pre-agreed Ts & Cs and rates.
Perhaps this put too much work on the people in the IPTs so they decided to make every contract a single-source and give the work only to the big boys.
Perhaps this put too much work on the people in the IPTs so they decided to make every contract a single-source and give the work only to the big boys.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another Way to Examine the Problem
Instead of looking to what exists at the moment, take a clean sheet of paper. Imagine the UK with no military and no equipment. Then:
1. Cast your collective minds forward 10 years.
2. Ask what the threats to national security are likely to be.
3. Then design your equipment and train your people to provide that defence in the best way possible.
Where would that take us?
1. Cast your collective minds forward 10 years.
2. Ask what the threats to national security are likely to be.
3. Then design your equipment and train your people to provide that defence in the best way possible.
Where would that take us?
1. Infantry - Para's/RM/Ghurka's plus other light infantry (+SF)
2. Light Armour
3. SH/AH
4. Tac AT C130/C17 (A400M if it's less crap than I anticipate)
5. PFI Strategic AT/AAR
6. Lean Support Arms - EOD/RLC etc
7. Specialist Elements - Mobile NBC units
8. CAS - I'll let the FJ guys argue the best platform out on this one.
9. Adequate AD for UK
10. ISTAR - UAV/ASTOR/Sentinal
11. Maritime Patrol Craft
12. Helicopter Carriers (CVF/Ocean class perfectly adequate)
13. Escorts - Frigates/ AD pickets
14. Subs - Hunter Killer/Strike
15. Joint Logs Chain
16. Effective leadership
Overall, a light and well equipped mobile force biased towards small scale/medium scale short term intervention/UK Defence.
2. Light Armour
3. SH/AH
4. Tac AT C130/C17 (A400M if it's less crap than I anticipate)
5. PFI Strategic AT/AAR
6. Lean Support Arms - EOD/RLC etc
7. Specialist Elements - Mobile NBC units
8. CAS - I'll let the FJ guys argue the best platform out on this one.
9. Adequate AD for UK
10. ISTAR - UAV/ASTOR/Sentinal
11. Maritime Patrol Craft
12. Helicopter Carriers (CVF/Ocean class perfectly adequate)
13. Escorts - Frigates/ AD pickets
14. Subs - Hunter Killer/Strike
15. Joint Logs Chain
16. Effective leadership
Overall, a light and well equipped mobile force biased towards small scale/medium scale short term intervention/UK Defence.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the reasons the Brits hate contractors is that as a generalisation UK contractors are made up of failed Servicemen who have left because they either did not succeed on the promotion ladder or they saw more opportunity outside. MFTS is a classic case of this where it is filled with ex-RAF bods with deply held views of how training should be done (ie the RAF way) and heavily influenced by their old RAF bosses. But SERCO, Babcock etc are just the same.
MGD
By short term I assume you mean 'non-enduring' i.e. a single shot with no roulement. Unfortunately, IMHO, that does not meet the requirement of intervention - intervention in another nations business always leads on to follow on stabilisation / peace keeping. Yes we could do as you suggest for humanitarian relief etc but intervention / peace keeping - forget it. I'm struggling to think of a recent intervention operation that has been 'short term' - even Sierra Leone left a significant training team behind for some years.
Bottom line - if we're going to reduce our forces to the size of say Belgiums (random choice - don't know their actual size) then we need to reduce our aspirations accordingly. If that means just the defence of UK territory (and whats left of its sovereign territory) plus the odd hurricane / flood relief then so be it. Leave the big wars to those with the money / forces - USA and China!
Pheasant
So true - and the reason many of these companies can bid cheap is they pay peanuts and rely on ex-servicemen looking to supplement their pensions.
small scale/medium scale short term intervention
Bottom line - if we're going to reduce our forces to the size of say Belgiums (random choice - don't know their actual size) then we need to reduce our aspirations accordingly. If that means just the defence of UK territory (and whats left of its sovereign territory) plus the odd hurricane / flood relief then so be it. Leave the big wars to those with the money / forces - USA and China!
Pheasant
So true - and the reason many of these companies can bid cheap is they pay peanuts and rely on ex-servicemen looking to supplement their pensions.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If that means just the defence of UK territory (and whats left of its sovereign territory) plus the odd hurricane / flood relief then so be it. Leave the big wars to those with the money / forces"
Nail.
Head.
BANG.
Nail.
Head.
BANG.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Those companies pitching for safety-related work (including airworthiness) had to pre-qualify to show that they were able to meet the required standards for skill, knowledge and experience etc. When a task was required it was supposed to be only a matter of the applicable contractors tendering their solution and manhour costs against an ITT/SOR; effectively, there would be a mini-competition for each contract, but with pre-agreed Ts & Cs and rates.
This raises the second problem - TUPE. The manhour costs are already predicated by the previous contractor. The only way to reduce a contract bid is by reducing the manpower offered not by cutting wages. On a second or third iteration of a contract things will be finely honed and the sitting contractor will have a competitive edge over the competition.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Now touching on contractors using failed servicemen. What a gross over-simplification. Many servicemen may have fulfilled their engagements. Others will have left at their option points as their work-life balance changes. It is no secret that priorities change between young thrusters in their 20s and early 30s and the more experienced family men near 40.
Of my contractors, the team was led by a retired full-term SNCO. There were two other ex-full engagement NCOs one of whom did not have a pension. The rest of the work force worked as effectively and to a similar ethos you would expect of those in uniform but their numbers were far fewer - no cooks and bottle washers, no medics, no ditstractions from work. There was no demarcation either multi-skilling and chores done on rotation. No cleaners were employed; the contractor did that,. A room needed painting; the contractor did that. The yard needed sweeping; no SWOs working party; the contractor did that.
OTOH I echo the sentiments that many Servicemen resent contract staff largely, I suspect, as they have no powers over them. They have to ask, not order. I remember when Miss PN graduated the reviewing officer said how much the RAF would depend on grey suiters. That was a decade ago. We still have a way to go.
Mandator
You're right, I overlooked the rates etc.
I daresay that it all got too complicated when everything above a certain value had to be put in the European Journal and all and sundry would then be invited to Tender!
You're right, I overlooked the rates etc.
I daresay that it all got too complicated when everything above a certain value had to be put in the European Journal and all and sundry would then be invited to Tender!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,108
Received 2,953 Likes
on
1,259 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest I think thats awful news. Thats the death nail of the BBMF.
On the 23rd April 2010 David Cameron stated....
and then on the 22nd June 2010....... He raised VAT.
Now, I don't have a problem with VAT but I would take what the Government says with a pinch of salt. They could very easily change their mind....and probably will
On the 23rd April 2010 David Cameron stated....
"We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT.
Now, I don't have a problem with VAT but I would take what the Government says with a pinch of salt. They could very easily change their mind....and probably will
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NutLoose
Well at least some good news
the Government currently has no plans to cut funding for the BBMF
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
light CAS aircraft reply
wannabecrewman: actually, I think you are spot on and BEagle and the d.dude are out of touch.
Anyone with experience of HERRICK CAS who examined your proposal properly would struggle to dismiss it. But I doubt anyone bothered to research the capability offered by these 2 aircraft. The Texan is the better option, but the Supertucano is still credible.
If you understand how we are doing CAS in Afghanistan, the light CAS aircraft makes sense. Last analysis I saw (you're not the first to ask this) showed some options can carry a truly impressive payload even compared to the GR4 (which carries less than you'd think for its size - less than the single engined Harrier, for example, due to its new engine's hot and high performance). For your money, you get much more firepower over the scene - or the same amount for cheaper (more airframes but not double the number so you'd still have fewer aircrew due to binning the navs).
By the way - the Americans are taking this route in a big way. I think they're getting the Texan. They looked at Afghanistan and they concluded light CAS aircraft was the future. We will follow, just a question of when.
So, to really save money: bin the Tucano at Linton, bin the Hawk, get the Texan and use it for BFJT and AFJT, fly them from the same base (close Linton), economies of scale with engineering, ground school, simulators. And have some operational for CAS. I would never advocate getting rid of another front line type as a result, the Harriers and Typhoons offer much more than CAS (despite the eternally ignorant Vev's categorising of the Typhoon as an Air Defence aircraft alone). But it might make the Tornado a bit more redundant...
Anyone with experience of HERRICK CAS who examined your proposal properly would struggle to dismiss it. But I doubt anyone bothered to research the capability offered by these 2 aircraft. The Texan is the better option, but the Supertucano is still credible.
If you understand how we are doing CAS in Afghanistan, the light CAS aircraft makes sense. Last analysis I saw (you're not the first to ask this) showed some options can carry a truly impressive payload even compared to the GR4 (which carries less than you'd think for its size - less than the single engined Harrier, for example, due to its new engine's hot and high performance). For your money, you get much more firepower over the scene - or the same amount for cheaper (more airframes but not double the number so you'd still have fewer aircrew due to binning the navs).
By the way - the Americans are taking this route in a big way. I think they're getting the Texan. They looked at Afghanistan and they concluded light CAS aircraft was the future. We will follow, just a question of when.
So, to really save money: bin the Tucano at Linton, bin the Hawk, get the Texan and use it for BFJT and AFJT, fly them from the same base (close Linton), economies of scale with engineering, ground school, simulators. And have some operational for CAS. I would never advocate getting rid of another front line type as a result, the Harriers and Typhoons offer much more than CAS (despite the eternally ignorant Vev's categorising of the Typhoon as an Air Defence aircraft alone). But it might make the Tornado a bit more redundant...
the GR4 (which carries less than you'd think for its size - less than the single engined Harrier...
More to FJ ops in AFG than just CAS .....
