Help focus the cuts on the right areas
National Insurance
Service Personnel pay (or at least paid on their behalf) contracted out rates of NI, reflecting our own pension, medical and dental schemes...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
be bold and get rid of capability.
Lets start with ASW. Lets get rid of our entire ASW cap. All Nimrods to go. All Type 23 frigates to go. All Merlin (Grey) to go.
Any Offensive Maritime Patrol capability should go. So, we get rid of all Tornado aircraft, All Nimrods and the Sentinel.
Lets start with ASW. Lets get rid of our entire ASW cap. All Nimrods to go. All Type 23 frigates to go. All Merlin (Grey) to go.
Any Offensive Maritime Patrol capability should go. So, we get rid of all Tornado aircraft, All Nimrods and the Sentinel.
There are four threats components against a surface force.
The one that Vec choses to ignore is the sub-surface threat. A threat that can endure for days, can be posed by a large number of potentially hostile states (PHS), and once in the vicinity of a surface force can be very hard to detect even with modern ASW forces. If this threat is ignored then the only defence is to stand-off out of range. The range of an SSK OTOH could therefore neutralise a surface force.
The air threat is of much shorter duration than a sub-surface threat and that posed by PHS much shorter in range. Effective ASW defence would therefore avoid any air threat.
The surface threat may be similar to the sub-surface threat and increase in relation to proximity to the littoral but never neutralised by increasing stand-off distance. It can be probably be countered effectively with a gun and CIWS.
Thus if there is no ASW capability there is no need of an AAW capability and we can revert to a pure gun boat role. As the ASW tactic requires manoeuvrablity and great stand-off distance it would probably negate any OCA capability so we could also dispense with flight decks.
Well?
So that means we only need the capabilities of the our continental neighbours, the French excepted.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everybody except PTI's hate PTI's thought I had it on authority that the highest paid PTI's were RAF who had markedly less responsibility than their army counter parts.
Maybe remove the PTI branch from the airforce and bring in APTC to look after all land based physical training.
The Idea of the NHS providing more medical reserves is a non starter I have a few friends ex TA AMS who were sacked by their trusts for being deployed despite what RFA 96 says it happens and the armed forces did sod all. To make this work you would need to drastically change the attitude to the TA within the NHS a simple solution make it a criminal offence to dismiss a TA soldier who has been deployed with a minimum 5 year sentence for the Chief exec and head of HR but for the reservist make it illegal for a trust to ask at recruitment if they are in TA/Reserves or if they join and make it a case for discrimination if their career is held back.
Maybe the MDHU issue could be solved by getting the military to take over the next failing NHS Trust that comes along.
As to the Airborne issue when apart from SF did the Para regt actually use parachutes to deploy. 2 sqn dropped into sierra leone onto a DZ secured by the Royal Marines. Maybe we could drastically cut parachute training to just SAS,SBS,SRR and Raiding support regt (or what ever 1 Para choose to call itself thease days) there is 1600 that could be used to fill in holes in other regiments and their support units could do the same for their parent cap badges infact it might be enough to replace the Gurkhas and some of the commonwealth recruits. The balance comming from the disbanded RAF Regt.
I wonder if Puma is being sacrificed to preserve the Chinook orders and will RAF go solely chinook and CHF take over the merlins?
Maybe remove the PTI branch from the airforce and bring in APTC to look after all land based physical training.
The Idea of the NHS providing more medical reserves is a non starter I have a few friends ex TA AMS who were sacked by their trusts for being deployed despite what RFA 96 says it happens and the armed forces did sod all. To make this work you would need to drastically change the attitude to the TA within the NHS a simple solution make it a criminal offence to dismiss a TA soldier who has been deployed with a minimum 5 year sentence for the Chief exec and head of HR but for the reservist make it illegal for a trust to ask at recruitment if they are in TA/Reserves or if they join and make it a case for discrimination if their career is held back.
Maybe the MDHU issue could be solved by getting the military to take over the next failing NHS Trust that comes along.
As to the Airborne issue when apart from SF did the Para regt actually use parachutes to deploy. 2 sqn dropped into sierra leone onto a DZ secured by the Royal Marines. Maybe we could drastically cut parachute training to just SAS,SBS,SRR and Raiding support regt (or what ever 1 Para choose to call itself thease days) there is 1600 that could be used to fill in holes in other regiments and their support units could do the same for their parent cap badges infact it might be enough to replace the Gurkhas and some of the commonwealth recruits. The balance comming from the disbanded RAF Regt.
I wonder if Puma is being sacrificed to preserve the Chinook orders and will RAF go solely chinook and CHF take over the merlins?
There is a clear tension between medics taking 'leave' from an NHS Trust to go to the 'Stan and their colleagues who have to cover the gaps. However, if CE NHS trusts have dismissed Reservists for being mobilised, action can be taken (and there is no so-called stautute of limitations). This would be an absolute PR disaster for a NHS Trust to have done this; moreover ACDS R&C might be interested in knowing a bit more about this, as would the local RFCA...
Do you have any more details (PM if necessary NURSE).
Do you have any more details (PM if necessary NURSE).
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that it is rumour web site and all that, but before we all eat ourselves up from the inside, has anyone actually seen what the HMG strategic plan and associated defence roles it expects from its military?
If we really are going to have all combat troops out of AFG by 2015, and if we are going to fall into the historical trap of isolationism, then there really is no need for a military at all - focused small scale intervention (only to conduct NEOs and disaster relief) is all that is required.
If that is the political direction then it is very clear -
Astute remains (as Oppenheimer said, you cannot 'disinvent' the nuclear weapon).
Fisheads retain a capability to protect British shipping and transport NEO/Disaster relief forces.
Strat AT to provide air bridge (C130Js - including tanker role - will do, no need for A400M or FSTA).
Infantry (slightly expand SF, significantly reduce line battalions).
Rotary - dont bother with anything else except for CH47 (possibly AH if sharpened guava fruit in the area - but that may be overkill and Wildcat may be able to do both roles with a big gun in the door).
No fast jets. No tanks. No Infantry Fighting Vehicles.
A British Defence Force orientated around national interests and maritime trade/NEO, with the nuclear option giving a seat at the UN/NATO security council. When required in extremis we will offer a disaster relief package.
And if that is the way that those in Main Building are thinking then God help us as if the cost to this country is its Armed Forces, then the whole gambit of historical lessons have obviously meant that the policy makers do not see the value in H M Forces, both now and beyond AFG.
I am no RUSI graduate, or defence academic - but by 2020 the world will be more unstable than it is now, not fighting over oil or religion, but the even more fundamental requirements of water, food and living space.
Lets see what happens then if we in the MoD are subjected to a treasury driven culling of capabilities and experience.
If we really are going to have all combat troops out of AFG by 2015, and if we are going to fall into the historical trap of isolationism, then there really is no need for a military at all - focused small scale intervention (only to conduct NEOs and disaster relief) is all that is required.
If that is the political direction then it is very clear -
Astute remains (as Oppenheimer said, you cannot 'disinvent' the nuclear weapon).
Fisheads retain a capability to protect British shipping and transport NEO/Disaster relief forces.
Strat AT to provide air bridge (C130Js - including tanker role - will do, no need for A400M or FSTA).
Infantry (slightly expand SF, significantly reduce line battalions).
Rotary - dont bother with anything else except for CH47 (possibly AH if sharpened guava fruit in the area - but that may be overkill and Wildcat may be able to do both roles with a big gun in the door).
No fast jets. No tanks. No Infantry Fighting Vehicles.
A British Defence Force orientated around national interests and maritime trade/NEO, with the nuclear option giving a seat at the UN/NATO security council. When required in extremis we will offer a disaster relief package.
And if that is the way that those in Main Building are thinking then God help us as if the cost to this country is its Armed Forces, then the whole gambit of historical lessons have obviously meant that the policy makers do not see the value in H M Forces, both now and beyond AFG.
I am no RUSI graduate, or defence academic - but by 2020 the world will be more unstable than it is now, not fighting over oil or religion, but the even more fundamental requirements of water, food and living space.
Lets see what happens then if we in the MoD are subjected to a treasury driven culling of capabilities and experience.
SDSR
The MOD is consulting widely across Defence, Industry, FCO and Acadaemia (I'm not sure if direct representations are taken from the public). It is interesting to note that the DCDC Strategic Trends 2006* document (looking forward to 2035, IIRC) already reads a little dated - it didn't see the financial crash and the limitations on spending that this has imposed - and, arguably, instability that may result from it.
The UK - in spite of what the metropolitan elite might think - have enormous presence and credibility abroad. Amongst the Commonwealth (treated by the previous administration as an embarrasing anachronism), members still look to Britain on leadership on global issues and hold our forces in extremely high regard and expect us to use them accordingly - even in the Indians deplore the fact we got rid of batmen...
By the way we need to get away from linking UNSC seat with holding a nuclear deterent. As a victo nation, we got the seat in 1945 (before having nukes) and it isn't a requirement to ahve them, and any plans to reform the UNSC would require the P5 to vote on it...and the UK could veto any undesirable outcome. I was recently in New York and speaking to several PERMREP staff (from UK, US and France) it was clear that there are no serious attempts to reform the Security Council (and compromise the role of current P5).
In sum, Britain is a global player and likely to remain so (don't be seduced by the BRIC concept) and we should reverse the 'appologetic abbrogation of duty' which has characterised the last 65 years and behave like a global player, rather than appologising and thinking small...
*Yes I know that this is effectively a rolling brief and is updated regularly.
The UK - in spite of what the metropolitan elite might think - have enormous presence and credibility abroad. Amongst the Commonwealth (treated by the previous administration as an embarrasing anachronism), members still look to Britain on leadership on global issues and hold our forces in extremely high regard and expect us to use them accordingly - even in the Indians deplore the fact we got rid of batmen...
By the way we need to get away from linking UNSC seat with holding a nuclear deterent. As a victo nation, we got the seat in 1945 (before having nukes) and it isn't a requirement to ahve them, and any plans to reform the UNSC would require the P5 to vote on it...and the UK could veto any undesirable outcome. I was recently in New York and speaking to several PERMREP staff (from UK, US and France) it was clear that there are no serious attempts to reform the Security Council (and compromise the role of current P5).
In sum, Britain is a global player and likely to remain so (don't be seduced by the BRIC concept) and we should reverse the 'appologetic abbrogation of duty' which has characterised the last 65 years and behave like a global player, rather than appologising and thinking small...
*Yes I know that this is effectively a rolling brief and is updated regularly.
Last edited by Whenurhappy; 11th Jul 2010 at 12:55. Reason: mongness with spelling
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Light Attack Aircraft?
An outsiders view, but is there not a case to bin/ cut JCA numbers and replace them with Super Tucano for CAS/COIN ops?
Greater endurance, cheaper to run, and cuts out AFJT for some pilots as you would need an extra course/Squadron based at Lynton, for which one would have thought most of the infrastructure already exists?
Justification? For the cost of a single JCA ($89 million flyaway cost estimated in FY 2010), you could have:
*10 Super Tucanos
*15 AT-6B Texans
Just my 2p, like I said, its an outsiders view, I am sure there are a fair few reasons why this wouldnt work.
Greater endurance, cheaper to run, and cuts out AFJT for some pilots as you would need an extra course/Squadron based at Lynton, for which one would have thought most of the infrastructure already exists?
Justification? For the cost of a single JCA ($89 million flyaway cost estimated in FY 2010), you could have:
*10 Super Tucanos
*15 AT-6B Texans
Just my 2p, like I said, its an outsiders view, I am sure there are a fair few reasons why this wouldnt work.
Last edited by WannabeCrewman; 11th Jul 2010 at 14:45.
WannabeCrewman, that would probably be fine if the opposition's AAA consisted only of spears and sharpened bits of fruit. If they have the odd large calibre machine gun, a COIN aircraft would soon be chewed to bits.
Single engined aircraft over the FLOT (that quaint old concept) operating at low speed? Not the healthiest place to be, I would suggest.
Low speed COIN aircraft and many drones would be at serious risk once the opposition fielded a few MiG-15s..........
Single engined aircraft over the FLOT (that quaint old concept) operating at low speed? Not the healthiest place to be, I would suggest.
Low speed COIN aircraft and many drones would be at serious risk once the opposition fielded a few MiG-15s..........
Last edited by BEagle; 11th Jul 2010 at 16:23. Reason: sppeling miskate
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
COIN aircraft.
Are we going to use Pound coins or Euros to operate them? Will they have a nice red 'gun' button and make exciting machine gun noises?
With a different game cartridge, they could be used to depth charge submarines etc.
Cor, that would be fun and would be very cheap too! We could of course keep all the Air Staff and let them pretend until they retire on full pay.
Only a small overhead to keep the 'train on the tracks'.
Are we going to use Pound coins or Euros to operate them? Will they have a nice red 'gun' button and make exciting machine gun noises?
With a different game cartridge, they could be used to depth charge submarines etc.
Cor, that would be fun and would be very cheap too! We could of course keep all the Air Staff and let them pretend until they retire on full pay.
Only a small overhead to keep the 'train on the tracks'.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am no RUSI graduate, or defence academic - but by 2020 the world will be more unstable than it is now, not fighting over oil or religion, but the even more fundamental requirements of water, food and living space.
I left the RAF in the big reductions at the end of the Cold War. At the time I wrote a paper for RUSI that was rejected. Main points were:
1. Increasing instability as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Cited Balkans, Georgia. Middle East and the 'Stans together with many historical examples.
2. Need to increase - not decrease - conventional forces to protect energy interests in the ME.
3. Requirement to be able to deploy surface (including naval) and air power.
The fact is that decisions made over the next few months will have an impact for many years. Any war fought in 10 years will be fought with equipment now in the procurement chain.
The real challenge is in making a reasonable assessment as to the possible threats. Guesswork? Yes, to a certain extent but I applaud the efforts that appear to be being made to get some good guesses.
I recall a conversation with an Air rank staff officer on one of the MoD planning committees about 25 years ago:
'We have been in about 25 wars, conflicts, emergencies since the end of WW2', he said. 'We only had plans for one of them. That means we should either shut down such planning efforts or expand them.'
Except in small actions, the UK no longer has the wherewithall to act unilaterally. We need partners through various treaties. NATO is the prime example here. Yes, we have commitments to this organization, a key to our long term defence.
Procurement is a huge cost. NATO has some skills in this area. Might it not be an idea to use these and provide some equipment commonality? Old story, I know. But the times might force, at least the European nations, down this route.
You will all hate this next thought. The RAF has been slow, very slow, to accept contractors. Believe me thay can do a good job IF they are allowed to. The US Army knows how to use them. They can do things fast, efficiently and at a reasonable cost. I know. I spent 5 years post RAF contracting to the US military.
Just some thoughts.
Act in haste, repent at leisure.
You will all hate this next thought. The RAF has been slow, very slow, to accept contractors. Believe me thay can do a good job IF they are allowed to. The US Army knows how to use them. They can do things fast, efficiently and at a reasonable cost. I know. I spent 5 years post RAF contracting to the US military.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MGD
Fair point. Just to add a little context having now seen both sides of the fence and currently supporting the US effort.
By far the worst military at accepting contractors are the Brits. There is a general distain and it pisses me off to be scowled at by the ignorant (REMF seniors typically the worst) whom I would have ripped a new one to a couple of years ago. We are often hampered by admin BS from providing the support you derserve.
Some people need to realise we are on the same side and would be ashamed if they were fully aware of some of the risks taken daily.
Apologies for the thread creep; continued respect to the SH crews.
Fair point. Just to add a little context having now seen both sides of the fence and currently supporting the US effort.
By far the worst military at accepting contractors are the Brits. There is a general distain and it pisses me off to be scowled at by the ignorant (REMF seniors typically the worst) whom I would have ripped a new one to a couple of years ago. We are often hampered by admin BS from providing the support you derserve.
Some people need to realise we are on the same side and would be ashamed if they were fully aware of some of the risks taken daily.
Apologies for the thread creep; continued respect to the SH crews.
By far the worst military at accepting contractors are the Brits.
Dengue Dude and the Air Staff
DD,
It's clearly been a while since you toured the 5th Floor. The Air Staff is a small group of civilian and uniformed personnel who directly support CAS and ACAS. It has survived routine streamlining and cost cutting like the rest of us. And I beleive that theya re entitled to their pensions also!
It's clearly been a while since you toured the 5th Floor. The Air Staff is a small group of civilian and uniformed personnel who directly support CAS and ACAS. It has survived routine streamlining and cost cutting like the rest of us. And I beleive that theya re entitled to their pensions also!
Just sack all the IPTs. I know they tried and some were very good. Get 5 or 6 very good civilian contract writers and pay them a million quid each a year ( no I am not one) We would save millions in the short and long term on contracts with civvy companies. Just watched a great prog on tele about the guys at Bos putting badly bought Chinnies back together after stripping them ???? Sorry good senior officers don't always make good contract writers.
Contracting
By far the most time consuming and costly element is the constant to-ing and fro-ing agreeing Terms and Conditions.
In about 1990 our Contract Manager (note, singular; nowadays we have teams of Commercial Managers, 3 grades higher doing a lesser job) developed a computer program the basis of which was the T&Cs every contractor was comfortable with for any given type of contract (R&D, Development, Production, Repair, Support etc). When he received a Request for Contract Action he simply ticked the boxes and printed out a contract, photocopied the RCA and attached it as the Schedule. (Remember, it is not the Contract/Commercial staffs who agree a price is fair and reasonable, contrary to what many believe).
Of course his bosses were apoplectic at this efficiency, he was transferred, his programme quietly ditched and replaced by a few more staff whose inefficiency was never in doubt. This was a double whammy, as the sudden increase in Production Lead Time (which includes time taken to let the contract) meant the Services ran out of whatever product was being contracted, be it spares, repair contracts or whatever.
His little program wouldn’t be suitable for all contracts of course; some are far easier to agree. If it is a service with a known and constant output, you get the contractor to propose one for you. Again, this negates the faffing around leaving you to concentrate on a fair price. In fact, there is an MoD Specification outlining just this process, but it hasn’t been used it for 18 years. Yes, you guessed it, for the contracts designed to maintain airworthiness. Not exactly thread drift, but I imagine (and hope) the new MAA are trying to work out a consistent, efficient process and how to apply it. The answer is implement existing regulations, processes and procedures. The difficult bit is finding some dinosaur who remembers how.
In about 1990 our Contract Manager (note, singular; nowadays we have teams of Commercial Managers, 3 grades higher doing a lesser job) developed a computer program the basis of which was the T&Cs every contractor was comfortable with for any given type of contract (R&D, Development, Production, Repair, Support etc). When he received a Request for Contract Action he simply ticked the boxes and printed out a contract, photocopied the RCA and attached it as the Schedule. (Remember, it is not the Contract/Commercial staffs who agree a price is fair and reasonable, contrary to what many believe).
Of course his bosses were apoplectic at this efficiency, he was transferred, his programme quietly ditched and replaced by a few more staff whose inefficiency was never in doubt. This was a double whammy, as the sudden increase in Production Lead Time (which includes time taken to let the contract) meant the Services ran out of whatever product was being contracted, be it spares, repair contracts or whatever.
His little program wouldn’t be suitable for all contracts of course; some are far easier to agree. If it is a service with a known and constant output, you get the contractor to propose one for you. Again, this negates the faffing around leaving you to concentrate on a fair price. In fact, there is an MoD Specification outlining just this process, but it hasn’t been used it for 18 years. Yes, you guessed it, for the contracts designed to maintain airworthiness. Not exactly thread drift, but I imagine (and hope) the new MAA are trying to work out a consistent, efficient process and how to apply it. The answer is implement existing regulations, processes and procedures. The difficult bit is finding some dinosaur who remembers how.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc, dont take this the wrong way, but if I'd seen half the things you recall on here, I think I would probably have either burst a bloodvessel or retired to the hills of Wales to be a cheese maker. 
...or had a Michael Douglas "Falling Down" moment!
I mean, all of us who have been in uniform have seen some dumb-ass decisions rolling downhill over the years, but it looks like you've had your share and a few others as well into the bargain.
Hasn't it given you more stress than you know what to do with over the years?
...or had a Michael Douglas "Falling Down" moment!
I mean, all of us who have been in uniform have seen some dumb-ass decisions rolling downhill over the years, but it looks like you've had your share and a few others as well into the bargain.
Hasn't it given you more stress than you know what to do with over the years?