Defence Review Result at End of October
Gentleman Aviator
when Portillo was defence minister in the 90s he only asked for a brochure on the F16 and F18 and suggested some RAF ranks could be merged
...... which is about the same size as the Met. Now the Met, from PC to Commissioner has (I think) a total of about 9 ranks, while the RAF (from AC to 4*) has about 18!! and the RN about the same .... (never really understood RN non-commissioned ranks).
.... er .... why??
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One can start to see the following construct:
4*s: CDS (political adviser), VCDS (finance and equipment), CJO (ops) ie disband London based Service Chiefs, Services rotate the remaining top posts.
3*s: CsinC of each Service(also act as head of Service); key Central staff appointments, NATO etc.
Joint components run via CJO removing tasking from CsinC ie removing (eg) Joint Harrier and JHC issues from single Service antics.
All "air" run through RAF but with environmental component 2*/1*s ie RN 2* runs maritime and is maritime AOA; Army 2* runs field helos; RAF 2* runs jets and heavies.
All "land" run by Army with 2*/1* components ie RM and RAF Regt sit under Army C2 but retain environmental expertise.
RN has all maritime.
4*s: CDS (political adviser), VCDS (finance and equipment), CJO (ops) ie disband London based Service Chiefs, Services rotate the remaining top posts.
3*s: CsinC of each Service(also act as head of Service); key Central staff appointments, NATO etc.
Joint components run via CJO removing tasking from CsinC ie removing (eg) Joint Harrier and JHC issues from single Service antics.
All "air" run through RAF but with environmental component 2*/1*s ie RN 2* runs maritime and is maritime AOA; Army 2* runs field helos; RAF 2* runs jets and heavies.
All "land" run by Army with 2*/1* components ie RM and RAF Regt sit under Army C2 but retain environmental expertise.
RN has all maritime.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think that we will have wait for Lord Stirrup of Jocks memoirs before we hear how he fought valiantly against the cuts of the years he served as CAS/CDS? Wouldn't want to jeopardise the peerage what!
What sort of deal will the redundees get after the changes announced following the last round?
Glad I'm out and feel sorry for those still serving.
What sort of deal will the redundees get after the changes announced following the last round?
Glad I'm out and feel sorry for those still serving.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: OTA E
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Word is there won't be any redundancies for Service people, although the Civil Service is likely to put some sort of package together.
Service manpower reductions will be through natural wastage, apparently, with reduced recruiting. As well as a sharp drop in the number of attractive jobs (as a result of the reduced number of ac), a severe reduction in promotion numbers will encourage a rise in PVR rates - which cuts the pay and pensions bill too, as PVR results in a 10% reduction in your pension.
Is the Telegraph right? Don't know; the decision's not made yet, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. So pick your 2 favourites and take your betting slip down to Ladbrooks.
The decision making should be guided by a Govt assessment of what it wants the Services to be able to do (the SDSR), and that assessment should drive the future Force structure. At the moment, though, most commentators seem to be treating it as just another planning round. The staffs are offering up a few slices (or chunks) of their particular salami, which is the preparatory work they have been instructed to do.
What the Telegraph and other media should be doing is looking at our long-term needs and place in the world, and thinking about where our foreign policy should be going and what that implies for Defence needs. Hyper-ventilating over every leak from MB is not the way to influence Govt policy - particularly if you think that policy should be intelligent, coherent and in the national interest, rather than just to oil the squeaky wheels for partisan advantage.
Service manpower reductions will be through natural wastage, apparently, with reduced recruiting. As well as a sharp drop in the number of attractive jobs (as a result of the reduced number of ac), a severe reduction in promotion numbers will encourage a rise in PVR rates - which cuts the pay and pensions bill too, as PVR results in a 10% reduction in your pension.
Is the Telegraph right? Don't know; the decision's not made yet, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. So pick your 2 favourites and take your betting slip down to Ladbrooks.
The decision making should be guided by a Govt assessment of what it wants the Services to be able to do (the SDSR), and that assessment should drive the future Force structure. At the moment, though, most commentators seem to be treating it as just another planning round. The staffs are offering up a few slices (or chunks) of their particular salami, which is the preparatory work they have been instructed to do.
What the Telegraph and other media should be doing is looking at our long-term needs and place in the world, and thinking about where our foreign policy should be going and what that implies for Defence needs. Hyper-ventilating over every leak from MB is not the way to influence Govt policy - particularly if you think that policy should be intelligent, coherent and in the national interest, rather than just to oil the squeaky wheels for partisan advantage.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: inside the train looking onto the platform.
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting Rid.
If they time it right, the Reds will have finished swanning round the world wasting 1M of the def budget on coloured smoke, and if someone has some guts they could also hack the UAS drinking Sqns and free up some real estate.............should save quite a bit me thinks.
Nope he's right, PVR reduces pension:
Flt Lt retiring at Optional Retirement Date (ORD) after 16 years of Service = pension of £12,557 per year
Flt Lt PVR after 16 years and 30 days of Service (having signed on past ORD) = pension of £11,028 per year
I make that £1529 per year loss or about 12%
I hope that hasn't spoiled your Saturday evening!!!
The B Word
Flt Lt retiring at Optional Retirement Date (ORD) after 16 years of Service = pension of £12,557 per year
Flt Lt PVR after 16 years and 30 days of Service (having signed on past ORD) = pension of £11,028 per year
I make that £1529 per year loss or about 12%
I hope that hasn't spoiled your Saturday evening!!!
The B Word
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As others have pointed out these DT 'cuts' must be options only cos if they are taken as read then the RAF, in terms of offensive capability, effectively becomes null and void.
My optimistic hat hopes that it's scrap GR4 or reduce Typhoon numbers. To do both is madness, right?
My optimistic hat hopes that it's scrap GR4 or reduce Typhoon numbers. To do both is madness, right?
Mate, as I said earlier there are "options" only at this point - no decision has been made. Most of the "options" I have seen have first and second screening dates in the coming weeks.
As usual the Press have got it wrong!
The B Word
As usual the Press have got it wrong!
The B Word
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,044
Received 2,917 Likes
on
1,248 Posts
You know this is all working on a clean exit from Afghanistan and a happy ever after scenario, if it all goes t*ts up and comes back to haunt us / bite us we will be up sh*t creek without a paddle, as to quote a major chain, "once it's gone, it's gone"...........
You play the big boys and get yourselves embroiled in a big boys war then think........Ohhh we can't afford this, let's play possum, roll over say we have reached our objectives, in the mean time our "objectives" who are still a force to be reckoned with are not so nieve as to say, "fair play you have had your go, let's all be pals now and forget the past"..... it doesn't work like that and be you Neville Chamberlain waiving your piece of paper or David Cameron speaking to the house, It feels like you are just letting go of the tigers tail and are playing duck with the security of the country.....
You play the big boys and get yourselves embroiled in a big boys war then think........Ohhh we can't afford this, let's play possum, roll over say we have reached our objectives, in the mean time our "objectives" who are still a force to be reckoned with are not so nieve as to say, "fair play you have had your go, let's all be pals now and forget the past"..... it doesn't work like that and be you Neville Chamberlain waiving your piece of paper or David Cameron speaking to the house, It feels like you are just letting go of the tigers tail and are playing duck with the security of the country.....
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today we have mostly been thinking about PFI
£20bn defence contracts face axe
I guess this won't have endeared the Chancellor towards PFI contracts:
PFI - Heads the contractor wins, tails the taxpayer loses.
More than £20bn of defence contracts structured as private finance initiatives (PFIs) face the axe as the Ministry of Defence undertakes radical cuts to address a £35bn deficit.
PFI - Heads the contractor wins, tails the taxpayer loses.
Last edited by LFFC; 8th Aug 2010 at 14:46.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DETR was/is a shambles - the central point for savings IIRC was that the service schools were inefficient and that training could be significantly streamlined by private sector magic dust.
Uh-huh.
When you take this away, then the numbers become much less attractive - but then if you've not invested in the extant schools for several years, you get yourself into a position where you have to proceed with the PFI because you've got no robust Plan B. (FSTA sound familiar?)
I loved this bit:
Except as we all know from the NAO's report, the MoD decided to sign the PFI without the DAS, so the one place the A330s won't be going is Afghanistan - or not at least, anytime soon.
S41
Uh-huh.
When you take this away, then the numbers become much less attractive - but then if you've not invested in the extant schools for several years, you get yourself into a position where you have to proceed with the PFI because you've got no robust Plan B. (FSTA sound familiar?)
I loved this bit:
The £10bn programme to supply and maintain 14 refuelling and transport planes based on the Airbus A330, is thought to be safest because it has been under contract for two years, and there is an urgent need for transport planes in Afghanistan.
S41
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I keep hearing constant rumours that the MOD will pull out of the SAR-H contract....sad day for our SAR heros but I suppose there will be plenty of jobs for the boys outside.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should service manpower cuts become a requirement, I doubt the MOD will be allowed to plan on natural wastage and specifically, the factoring of PVR rates is way too much of an unknown variable. PVR is, and always has been, a mixture of push and pull factors and if you're earning anywhere between 30K and 70K the pull factor from the commercial world is going to be a little on the downside! Likewise, a lot of people leaving the forces either step sideways into another public sector post or head for the defence industry...in both cases the very areas where jobs are going to be hit hardest.
Realistically, if manpower cuts are on the way then so is a redundancy package and I have seen nothing to suggest that it won't be the usual Armed Forces scheme (something like, up to 19 months pay tax free and pension that has been earned paid in full).
Realistically, if manpower cuts are on the way then so is a redundancy package and I have seen nothing to suggest that it won't be the usual Armed Forces scheme (something like, up to 19 months pay tax free and pension that has been earned paid in full).
I can't see the MOD paying for ATPL(H)s for pilots year in/year out. Moreover, the time frames required to get vfm for trg the rearcrew as paramedics is at odds with policy of 1 tour SAR and then back to SH. If they break away/clarify the FI element of the contract then I can see the Mil involvement with the SARH being removed completely. I appreciate that there will be contract implications for removing the Mil support to the capability, but I'm sure after a period of time the contract will be amended the Mil crews will fade away and other bidders will be too apathetic to challenge.
What would be interesting is to compare the cost of the various alternate options for keeping the capability within the Mil with the preferred bidder. Or to match the resources that the preferred bidder intends to use to provide the SAR capability with a Mil solution: For example, if they intend to reduce the support staff (SE Fitts/Ops/Eng etc) and reduce the number of ac then we match it and work out our cost...... But I'm sure that has been done already!
Looking at the project from the preferred bidder's angle, would they want the hassle of having to include the Mil within their decision process? It would be a distraction from their profit making and would not allow total autonomy - hard to affect T&Cs when one base/personnel are working to one set of rules and another to another.
What a sad day it will be, if this is pushed through and the Mil play second fiddle to a contractor for a capability of this importance.
I
What would be interesting is to compare the cost of the various alternate options for keeping the capability within the Mil with the preferred bidder. Or to match the resources that the preferred bidder intends to use to provide the SAR capability with a Mil solution: For example, if they intend to reduce the support staff (SE Fitts/Ops/Eng etc) and reduce the number of ac then we match it and work out our cost...... But I'm sure that has been done already!
Looking at the project from the preferred bidder's angle, would they want the hassle of having to include the Mil within their decision process? It would be a distraction from their profit making and would not allow total autonomy - hard to affect T&Cs when one base/personnel are working to one set of rules and another to another.
What a sad day it will be, if this is pushed through and the Mil play second fiddle to a contractor for a capability of this importance.
I
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
In '73 FOFL were only offered voluntary redundancy and then only those in specific roles. SO2 and higher were in both voluntary and compulsory and there were quite a few surprises.
With the F3 demise and possible effects on the GR4, WSO(N) look vulnerable.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Swamp
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vfr into cloud and B word,
my understanding of the impact of PVR on pension was is that it is tapered according to length of service; if you PVR after 16 years, it costs you approx 12% of your pension. If you PVR at age 50, you lose nothing at all. In between 38 and 50 years old, the % you lose gradually reduces if you PVR. This was for AFPS 75, not sure what happens with AFPS 05.
F.O.D
my understanding of the impact of PVR on pension was is that it is tapered according to length of service; if you PVR after 16 years, it costs you approx 12% of your pension. If you PVR at age 50, you lose nothing at all. In between 38 and 50 years old, the % you lose gradually reduces if you PVR. This was for AFPS 75, not sure what happens with AFPS 05.
F.O.D