SDSR - Can the Min Def and Joint Chiefs just say no!?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maroon,
I dont mean to drag the debate down to the lowest common denominator, but I'm afraid you may be labouring under a misapprehension that the starred ranks/politicians actually give a monkeys.
As another contributor says, why should they resign, they have fridges to fill, children to educate and in the case of the outgoing CDS, a two million pound pension pot to keep safe. It would be laudable to think that the higher-ups are cut from a different cloth to the rest of the "Whats In It For Me" generation, but I'm afraid to me, actions speak louder than words.
And these actions have been reverberating for the last 20 years or so, since the end of the Cold War. The generation of senior military men/women/politico's who would have made a stand on principle is long gone I'm afraid. True, there have been resignations at Colonel and equivalent level, but these arent the guys on the 5th floor who actually have any real influence; their influence is where it matters to the troops, out in theatre or at the sharp end.
Those who make the decisions, I'm afraid, couldnt give a fig. Thats the cold hard reality. I would have liked to have thought that for all the noise he generated (most of it warranted as well, and at least he had the b*lls to stick his neck out), that Richard Dannatt would have been able to fight the services' corner, but as most of the cross-bench former military peers have found, no matter how heartfelt it may be, your concerns for your troops are only news until tomorrow when they become chip wrappers. The world moves on and prisoners get to sue the government for lack of duty of care whilst our other colleagues and former oppos are risking their necks on a daily basis. And, I've just learned, after a weekend away from the dead tree press, that Dannatt appears to have jacked it in.
Sorry mate. You're making an assumption that these guys have integrity. Their actions would indicate that they dont.
I'm not sure that the lions share of them ever had any to start with.
I dont mean to drag the debate down to the lowest common denominator, but I'm afraid you may be labouring under a misapprehension that the starred ranks/politicians actually give a monkeys.
As another contributor says, why should they resign, they have fridges to fill, children to educate and in the case of the outgoing CDS, a two million pound pension pot to keep safe. It would be laudable to think that the higher-ups are cut from a different cloth to the rest of the "Whats In It For Me" generation, but I'm afraid to me, actions speak louder than words.
And these actions have been reverberating for the last 20 years or so, since the end of the Cold War. The generation of senior military men/women/politico's who would have made a stand on principle is long gone I'm afraid. True, there have been resignations at Colonel and equivalent level, but these arent the guys on the 5th floor who actually have any real influence; their influence is where it matters to the troops, out in theatre or at the sharp end.
Those who make the decisions, I'm afraid, couldnt give a fig. Thats the cold hard reality. I would have liked to have thought that for all the noise he generated (most of it warranted as well, and at least he had the b*lls to stick his neck out), that Richard Dannatt would have been able to fight the services' corner, but as most of the cross-bench former military peers have found, no matter how heartfelt it may be, your concerns for your troops are only news until tomorrow when they become chip wrappers. The world moves on and prisoners get to sue the government for lack of duty of care whilst our other colleagues and former oppos are risking their necks on a daily basis. And, I've just learned, after a weekend away from the dead tree press, that Dannatt appears to have jacked it in.
Sorry mate. You're making an assumption that these guys have integrity. Their actions would indicate that they dont.
I'm not sure that the lions share of them ever had any to start with.
Last edited by Jabba_TG12; 2nd Aug 2010 at 09:32. Reason: typo's, formatting & update to Dannatt situation
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the early 90's the Dutch (4 star) CDS resigned over the political plan to send a lightly armed batallion of peacekeepers to Srebrenica.
His view was they should either go in force, or not go at all.
He resigned, I think with his pension, they went ahead anyway with the tragic results now universally known.
It did not change a thing but he kept his integrity, unlike so many.
His view was they should either go in force, or not go at all.
He resigned, I think with his pension, they went ahead anyway with the tragic results now universally known.
It did not change a thing but he kept his integrity, unlike so many.
This is how the SDSR is shaping up to be spun...
Current Defence budget, minus
Swingeing cuts to all forms of conventional capability, plus
Cost of Trident and its replacement...
.... equals the biggest boost to the Defence budget in recent memory, in glorious defiance of the economic circumstances!
I think the fact that Trident was paid separately from the rest of Defence will be lost on Joe Public, and the resulting 'spike' in the Defence budget graphs will be blatantly misused for the remainder of this parliament.
Current Defence budget, minus
Swingeing cuts to all forms of conventional capability, plus
Cost of Trident and its replacement...
.... equals the biggest boost to the Defence budget in recent memory, in glorious defiance of the economic circumstances!
I think the fact that Trident was paid separately from the rest of Defence will be lost on Joe Public, and the resulting 'spike' in the Defence budget graphs will be blatantly misused for the remainder of this parliament.
Me too.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Government is looking towards Canada for the answers. They cut their Military literally to the bone on the premise that it could all be regenerated if and when the need arose. That is where we are headed.
Unfortunately, we don't have the natural resources to drive rapid economic growth to even begin to make that a reality. I think we are on the brink of losing whole capabilities forever.
There will be no stalegmites in our budget graphs, just huge stalectites.
I think the 'apparent' neglect of the Falklands is another mistake in the making. No longer participating in poorly planned hot and dusty adventures is one thing, but ignoring the potential of the FI is quite another.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Government is looking towards Canada for the answers. They cut their Military literally to the bone on the premise that it could all be regenerated if and when the need arose. That is where we are headed.
Unfortunately, we don't have the natural resources to drive rapid economic growth to even begin to make that a reality. I think we are on the brink of losing whole capabilities forever.
There will be no stalegmites in our budget graphs, just huge stalectites.
I think the 'apparent' neglect of the Falklands is another mistake in the making. No longer participating in poorly planned hot and dusty adventures is one thing, but ignoring the potential of the FI is quite another.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Age: 53
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canadian Forces
Wyler,
You are referring to what the Canadian Forces (CF) call the "Decade of Darkness"; a long pay freeze, few promotions and a force reduction programme. Not a good time apparently.
However, right now the CF is growing and DND (Canadian MoD) have invested heavily in new equipment. We even have a pay rise this year, unlike my RAF pension. The CF went through painful cuts but are doing well today, maybe in the long run the same will be so for the British Forces.
I'm just glad I jumped ship when I did.
You are referring to what the Canadian Forces (CF) call the "Decade of Darkness"; a long pay freeze, few promotions and a force reduction programme. Not a good time apparently.
However, right now the CF is growing and DND (Canadian MoD) have invested heavily in new equipment. We even have a pay rise this year, unlike my RAF pension. The CF went through painful cuts but are doing well today, maybe in the long run the same will be so for the British Forces.
I'm just glad I jumped ship when I did.
Wokkadoctor. Yep, I work with a chap who bailed out as well. I think our situation is more desperate though as the whole world is on the skids and so any chance of money becoming available for the next few decades in the UK is almost nil.
That is why I believe that those capabilities cut will be gone forever.
That is why I believe that those capabilities cut will be gone forever.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So again more MoD leaks and media speculation on a significant reduction in the UK's rotary capability. Now I have not had sight of this leaked paper, and aside from Dr Fox's apparent 'U' turn on the requirement for helicopters (recorded for posterity in other recent threads), but can someone enlighten me as to what was wrong with the original FRWS?I thought that much effort had been made to ensure that the 2004 NAO report was satisfied within a recent review and reconciliation of revised costings (effectively bringing it with an affordable budget).
Therefore was all this effort only conducted last year in vain or is the SDSR actually purely a cost cutting exercise and absolutely nothing to do with current, future and emerging threats?
Any reduction in lift capability must surely be placing ground troops at risk and before Afghanistan the NAO highlighted this.
Even if we are expecting a few years/months warning for some of the future operations, helicopters and crews cannot be procured/trained in this time frame, especially for some of the specialist roles that could be lost forever with this so called 'strategic' review.
The silence over Pakistan is that the helicopter cupboard is empty. Do politicians/HMT think that activities will not be conducted concurrently (enduring campaign, SSFI (NEO) and disaster relief?).
All probable and highly suspect if taken on risk by HMG (look what happened when Labour took the NAO report on risk).
So tell me what holes the SDSR has found in FRWS then let's start talking about cutting helicopter capability.
This will bite us, the troops we support and the British public when they need helicopters.
Therefore was all this effort only conducted last year in vain or is the SDSR actually purely a cost cutting exercise and absolutely nothing to do with current, future and emerging threats?
Any reduction in lift capability must surely be placing ground troops at risk and before Afghanistan the NAO highlighted this.
Even if we are expecting a few years/months warning for some of the future operations, helicopters and crews cannot be procured/trained in this time frame, especially for some of the specialist roles that could be lost forever with this so called 'strategic' review.
The silence over Pakistan is that the helicopter cupboard is empty. Do politicians/HMT think that activities will not be conducted concurrently (enduring campaign, SSFI (NEO) and disaster relief?).
All probable and highly suspect if taken on risk by HMG (look what happened when Labour took the NAO report on risk).
So tell me what holes the SDSR has found in FRWS then let's start talking about cutting helicopter capability.
This will bite us, the troops we support and the British public when they need helicopters.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 14th Aug 2010 at 17:29.
MM,
I think you got it right in your second paragraph, the SDSR is purely a cost savings exercise (in my opinion) so everyhing else you say, while possibly valid, is of no consequence.
Have a look at this....
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | Dr Liam Fox outlines reform of the Ministry of Defence
About half way down they talk of 5 steps, which starts off with effectively how much money is saved, and works thoriugh what capability is lost as a result with associated risks.
Surely a SDR should run as follows:
Step 1 - Decide what HMG wants to be able to do in the world in terms of Defence and Foreign Policy.
Step 2 - Decide what assets/capabilities are required to fulfill the wishes established in Step 1.
Step 3 - Cost the assets/capabilities decided in Step 2.
Step 4 - If the costs calculated in Step 3 are acceptable FINE! If the costs are unacceptable revisit step 1 and decide what we are no longer going to be able to do as a nation. Trim our aspirations.
Now go through steps 1-4 repeatedly until the costs generated in step 3 are acceptable....
This doesn't appear to be what we are doing. It appears to be a case of "there is this much money, what can we still do, and what risks are we taking.....".
At least that is how it appears to me, but then I have been told before that I look at things too simply......!!!
I think you got it right in your second paragraph, the SDSR is purely a cost savings exercise (in my opinion) so everyhing else you say, while possibly valid, is of no consequence.
Have a look at this....
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | Dr Liam Fox outlines reform of the Ministry of Defence
About half way down they talk of 5 steps, which starts off with effectively how much money is saved, and works thoriugh what capability is lost as a result with associated risks.
Surely a SDR should run as follows:
Step 1 - Decide what HMG wants to be able to do in the world in terms of Defence and Foreign Policy.
Step 2 - Decide what assets/capabilities are required to fulfill the wishes established in Step 1.
Step 3 - Cost the assets/capabilities decided in Step 2.
Step 4 - If the costs calculated in Step 3 are acceptable FINE! If the costs are unacceptable revisit step 1 and decide what we are no longer going to be able to do as a nation. Trim our aspirations.
Now go through steps 1-4 repeatedly until the costs generated in step 3 are acceptable....
This doesn't appear to be what we are doing. It appears to be a case of "there is this much money, what can we still do, and what risks are we taking.....".
At least that is how it appears to me, but then I have been told before that I look at things too simply......!!!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus,
Pretty much spot on. Properly done, the only refinement is to revisit the assumptions of how you achieve things in step 2, and once you are sure that you have the most efficient solution, conduct 3 and 4.
The "challenge" / "development opportunity" is that there is apparently some temptation by certain individuals* to "take on risk" / "think outside the box" / "(insert w*nk word here)" in step 2, "demonstrating" that step 1 can be achieved with the smaller resources available in step 3. Here lies the road to perdition!
I'm standing by to be amazed by the fact that this hasn't happened this time round!
S41
*Possibly brown-nosing individuals seeking to climb what's left of the greasy pole by screwing everyone else over.
Pretty much spot on. Properly done, the only refinement is to revisit the assumptions of how you achieve things in step 2, and once you are sure that you have the most efficient solution, conduct 3 and 4.
The "challenge" / "development opportunity" is that there is apparently some temptation by certain individuals* to "take on risk" / "think outside the box" / "(insert w*nk word here)" in step 2, "demonstrating" that step 1 can be achieved with the smaller resources available in step 3. Here lies the road to perdition!
I'm standing by to be amazed by the fact that this hasn't happened this time round!
S41
*Possibly brown-nosing individuals seeking to climb what's left of the greasy pole by screwing everyone else over.
MOD and HMT are just setting out their negotiating positions before they get down to it nothing more.
I would have been disappointed if HMT said we will just pay for it and MOD had to make no sacrifices.
A compromise will be reached which satisfies nobody but keeps everybody a bit happier.
I would have been disappointed if HMT said we will just pay for it and MOD had to make no sacrifices.
A compromise will be reached which satisfies nobody but keeps everybody a bit happier.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the Threat?
In the many threads here on Ppprune on the subject of 'Defence Cuts'there has been a myriad of speculations and suggestions as to what can, will or should be done to reduce costs.
What I have seen little of is any sensible analysis of the threat over, say, the next 20 years.
I use 20 years as being what appears to be the procurement cycle and - possibly - the time required to generate lost force capability. In the latter case I am just guessing.
However, it is a truism that our defence capability needs to be sufficient to counter the threat.
So, what threats do we see out there over the next 20 or so years?
Cicero
What I have seen little of is any sensible analysis of the threat over, say, the next 20 years.
I use 20 years as being what appears to be the procurement cycle and - possibly - the time required to generate lost force capability. In the latter case I am just guessing.
However, it is a truism that our defence capability needs to be sufficient to counter the threat.
So, what threats do we see out there over the next 20 or so years?
the sinews of war are infinite money
lars,
My (limited) understanding is that you don't necessarily define a specific threat.
So for example, and its a made up one, you don't say that there is a specific threat such as an invasion by Greece of the UK in 15 years time - after they have dropped out of the Euro and invaded all of Europe in revenge for the poverty they were plunged into (apologies to any Greeks reading).
Rather, as I alluded to in my Step 1, you decide on what you want to able do, such as for example:
Conduct an amphibious landing (opposed/unopposed?) of a brigade sized force.
Whether this amphibious ability is then used downstream in the Falklands, or Denmark or Iran or Korea or Cuba or even Maine is not a required part of your crystal ball gazing. It is something you can do where ever or when ever you so require it.
As further examples, if part of what you want to do (my Step 1) is "Defend the UK from acts of terroism and cyber warfare" you do so by having certain capabilities, without being specific about where the terroism/cyber threat has orginated from or will originate from in the next 20 years.
So you go for the generic rather than the specific.
Anyway, that is my understanding. But I am a very small cog in the machine, don't now, and have never, work in MOD - and have been repeatedly told that I am too simplistic (which is ironic when you consider that the KISS principle was hammered into me repeatedly in training).
My (limited) understanding is that you don't necessarily define a specific threat.
So for example, and its a made up one, you don't say that there is a specific threat such as an invasion by Greece of the UK in 15 years time - after they have dropped out of the Euro and invaded all of Europe in revenge for the poverty they were plunged into (apologies to any Greeks reading).
Rather, as I alluded to in my Step 1, you decide on what you want to able do, such as for example:
Conduct an amphibious landing (opposed/unopposed?) of a brigade sized force.
Whether this amphibious ability is then used downstream in the Falklands, or Denmark or Iran or Korea or Cuba or even Maine is not a required part of your crystal ball gazing. It is something you can do where ever or when ever you so require it.
As further examples, if part of what you want to do (my Step 1) is "Defend the UK from acts of terroism and cyber warfare" you do so by having certain capabilities, without being specific about where the terroism/cyber threat has orginated from or will originate from in the next 20 years.
So you go for the generic rather than the specific.
Anyway, that is my understanding. But I am a very small cog in the machine, don't now, and have never, work in MOD - and have been repeatedly told that I am too simplistic (which is ironic when you consider that the KISS principle was hammered into me repeatedly in training).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, and I mean that genuinely as sadly the Defence Intranet posts offer no opportunity for debate/discussion and there have been on the whole some well informed debate (although essentially fuelled by media and leaked papers).
I continue to have concern that it appears that we are repeating mistakes (sorry, Lessons Identified) from previous reviews.Where is the 'peace dividend' from the demise of the Warsaw Pact, and look what happened next. Do RUSI and the DG Strat gurus truly believe that the world is a safer place, and advising HMG/HMT as such?
I also do not get a warm feeling of coherence. One report says reduce helicopters, the next says reduce Para/Marine jumps from C130s as the troops will be ferried into ops in helicopters.
Smoke and mirrors.
Equally from a media reported Defence policy of forward intervention and power projection, then how on earth can HMG reconcile this political aspiration with the reality post a British military reduced to a a force that has absolutely no credible poise or posture, with no means to power project.
I really hope that the politicians stop deceiving either themselves and by default the British people and stop this grandiose talk of power projection and early intervention as based on these rumours the politicians should be telling the British public that an Italian style Gendarmerie is all that we will be able to deliver - with nuclear subs.
And if the British public are happy with this, then fine I will get my coat. But don't suddenly start bleating when Pakistan or Carlisle or expat evacuations or Northern Ireland enters a new phase, or the political aspiration for a withdraw in 2014/15 doesn't go to plan or terror does hit UK shores on a scale that could have been potentially prevented at source.
I was informed (and reported in press over the weekend) that the Coalition was beginning to fracture and that Dr Fox was preparing his resignation as he believed that that the UK should be re-investing in it's military during this period in history and not being forced by the Treasury to cut.
So perhaps my question has been answered and the 'main man' himself has the integrity and true strategic vision to see the potential threats and has the honour to say so.
I continue to have concern that it appears that we are repeating mistakes (sorry, Lessons Identified) from previous reviews.Where is the 'peace dividend' from the demise of the Warsaw Pact, and look what happened next. Do RUSI and the DG Strat gurus truly believe that the world is a safer place, and advising HMG/HMT as such?
I also do not get a warm feeling of coherence. One report says reduce helicopters, the next says reduce Para/Marine jumps from C130s as the troops will be ferried into ops in helicopters.
Smoke and mirrors.
Equally from a media reported Defence policy of forward intervention and power projection, then how on earth can HMG reconcile this political aspiration with the reality post a British military reduced to a a force that has absolutely no credible poise or posture, with no means to power project.
I really hope that the politicians stop deceiving either themselves and by default the British people and stop this grandiose talk of power projection and early intervention as based on these rumours the politicians should be telling the British public that an Italian style Gendarmerie is all that we will be able to deliver - with nuclear subs.
And if the British public are happy with this, then fine I will get my coat. But don't suddenly start bleating when Pakistan or Carlisle or expat evacuations or Northern Ireland enters a new phase, or the political aspiration for a withdraw in 2014/15 doesn't go to plan or terror does hit UK shores on a scale that could have been potentially prevented at source.
I was informed (and reported in press over the weekend) that the Coalition was beginning to fracture and that Dr Fox was preparing his resignation as he believed that that the UK should be re-investing in it's military during this period in history and not being forced by the Treasury to cut.
So perhaps my question has been answered and the 'main man' himself has the integrity and true strategic vision to see the potential threats and has the honour to say so.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 16th Aug 2010 at 08:56.
