SDSR Revisited ?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lookout! More cuts incoming!
MoD To Announce Further Defence Cuts
MoD To Announce Further Defence Cuts
The Ministry of Defence will shortly set out which further areas of military expenditure will be affected by the cuts of October’s Strategic Defence and Security Review.
Defence minister Peter Luff said the full impact of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) on the MoD budget from April onwards has yet to be fully spelled out.
It is likely some new military programmes will be affected.
"Perhaps it is our fault for failing to make our position clear - we thought we had told the outside world," Mr Luff told Bloomberg's Business Week.
"The big decisions have been taken; the fundamental assumptions won’t be changed, but there were unallocated savings identified which were a matter of public record and which we now have to find."
The MoD has been forced to reduce its expenditure by 8% over the next four years.
Cuts already announced in the SDSR include reduced aircraft numbers for a single future aircraft carrier and the possible mothballing of a second carrier.
Last week Defence Secretary Liam Fox announced that up to 11,000 service personnel risk losing their jobs.
"We always said it would take more than two planning rounds to sort out the full financial consequences of the inheritance we had," Mr Luff said.
The coalition Government has said there is a £38bn defence budget shortfall inherited from the Labour Party.
"There are a whole stack of options on the table which we are still looking at and I’m not going to rule in or out any one of them," Mr Luff added.
However the minister would not be drawn on the further extent of cuts expected to hit the MoD.
When asked if further cuts would total £1bn Mr Luff, who is responsible for defence equipment, support and technology, replied: "It depends on how you define it."
Defence minister Peter Luff said the full impact of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) on the MoD budget from April onwards has yet to be fully spelled out.
It is likely some new military programmes will be affected.
"Perhaps it is our fault for failing to make our position clear - we thought we had told the outside world," Mr Luff told Bloomberg's Business Week.
"The big decisions have been taken; the fundamental assumptions won’t be changed, but there were unallocated savings identified which were a matter of public record and which we now have to find."
The MoD has been forced to reduce its expenditure by 8% over the next four years.
Cuts already announced in the SDSR include reduced aircraft numbers for a single future aircraft carrier and the possible mothballing of a second carrier.
Last week Defence Secretary Liam Fox announced that up to 11,000 service personnel risk losing their jobs.
"We always said it would take more than two planning rounds to sort out the full financial consequences of the inheritance we had," Mr Luff said.
The coalition Government has said there is a £38bn defence budget shortfall inherited from the Labour Party.
"There are a whole stack of options on the table which we are still looking at and I’m not going to rule in or out any one of them," Mr Luff added.
However the minister would not be drawn on the further extent of cuts expected to hit the MoD.
When asked if further cuts would total £1bn Mr Luff, who is responsible for defence equipment, support and technology, replied: "It depends on how you define it."
However you look at it, the public will not accept cuts to the branch of the forces who are losing good people every day while the other two branches lose nobody.
Overly simplistic - yes.
Hard to argue against though. How do you argue doing less about the death rate on the ground, to keep some additional capability which might be used one day, maybe, perhaps ? Thats why the Army is affected less.
Overly simplistic - yes.
Hard to argue against though. How do you argue doing less about the death rate on the ground, to keep some additional capability which might be used one day, maybe, perhaps ? Thats why the Army is affected less.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GrahamO,
Very very simplistic and a bit stupid too. By your rational, since the AAC and CHF have lost less people in Iraq and the Stan than the RAF then they too should be disbanded???
Very very simplistic and a bit stupid too. By your rational, since the AAC and CHF have lost less people in Iraq and the Stan than the RAF then they too should be disbanded???
GrahamO,
Your argument can be turned completely on its head. "Boots on the ground" carry a high political risk - as you point out, the government feels the heat as soldiers die week after week, year after year. This does not inevitably lead to prioritising the Army above all else.
Air and sea power carry less political risk in their employment and are therefore arguably more useful, especially for an island nation. I believe the future appetite for enduring troop deployments will be minimal - and if they do happen, they will most likely be under the UN or EU banners.
Partially-relevant quote from Robert Gates last month:
If the Americans are thinking like this, what do you think our government are thinking? The Army are deluded if they think they are going to escape the pain once we're out of Afghanistan. Future interventions will be just like the original (successful) bit of HERRICK - SF supported by air/maritime.
Your argument can be turned completely on its head. "Boots on the ground" carry a high political risk - as you point out, the government feels the heat as soldiers die week after week, year after year. This does not inevitably lead to prioritising the Army above all else.
Air and sea power carry less political risk in their employment and are therefore arguably more useful, especially for an island nation. I believe the future appetite for enduring troop deployments will be minimal - and if they do happen, they will most likely be under the UN or EU banners.
Partially-relevant quote from Robert Gates last month:
In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined
However you look at it, the public will not accept cuts to the branch of the forces who are losing good people every day while the other two branches lose nobody.
Overly simplistic - yes.
Hard to argue against though. How do you argue doing less about the death rate on the ground, to keep some additional capability which might be used one day, maybe, perhaps ? Thats why the Army is affected less.
Overly simplistic - yes.
Hard to argue against though. How do you argue doing less about the death rate on the ground, to keep some additional capability which might be used one day, maybe, perhaps ? Thats why the Army is affected less.
FB
@ Door Slider
Very very simplistic and a bit stupid too. By your rational, since the AAC and CHF have lost less people in Iraq and the Stan than the RAF then they too should be disbanded???
To answer your questions though, yes, I would if I had the above choice, as long as it would save more lives than the closure would cause. To do otherwise would be stupid.
Tough call.
Not stupid at all. The government is not solely driven by RAF priorities and demands - they are elected by us, and sometimes that means that saving lives today is more important than a worry about tomorrow.
Thats the bit a lot of flying chaps seem to struggle with - the RAF can big up all their self-importance but today, on the ground, the public do understand and don't agree that RAF toys for tomorrow programmes are more important than lives being lost. If the RAF were actually fighting an air war, the situation would be very different, but its not.
GrahamO:
I think you avoided addressing the subsequent point made by myself and FB, namely that the national interest may not be best served by spending more money on our HERRICK ground forces...
you have avoided answering the main point
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe a question that needs answering is what level of armed forces can the United Kingdom sustain both in terms of both money and manpower. I know the RAF hasn't had to recruit heavily from the Commonwealth. But if commonwealth & Gurkha recruiting were stopped what level of Army could be sustained by recruitment from the United Kingdom? That would impact on the size of airforce needed.
@Easy Street
The public at large disagree with your statement - the public do not want dying land forces 'in the national interest', so the RAF can have more money to spend on platforms which are incomplete.
And it is the public who largely decide which politicians get elected and hence what is in the national interest. Backed of course by the press who reflect the public mood that deaths of army chaps on the ground to keep Nimrod et all funded is not 'in the public interest'.
And it is the public who largely decide which politicians get elected and hence what is in the national interest. Backed of course by the press who reflect the public mood that deaths of army chaps on the ground to keep Nimrod et all funded is not 'in the public interest'.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"However you look at it, the public will not accept cuts to the branch of the forces who are losing good people every day while the other two branches lose nobody."
I think you'd be quite surprised Graham, just what the public will accept. So long as it isnt happening to them.
I'm reminded of the old analogy of putting a frog in a saucepan of cold water and then heating it slowly. So long as they're not being forced to watch said frogs being tipped into a vat of boiling water...
After all, look at what happened nearly 10 years ago with the fuel protests, sealing off the delivery depots. And that was with fuel at half the price it is now. See? The slowly boiling frog effect in action...
I think you'd be amazed how much further you're going to have to yank Joe Public's chain before he or she realises. Nobody gives a t*ss any more about anything, not just the services, unless they are directly affected.
I think you'd be quite surprised Graham, just what the public will accept. So long as it isnt happening to them.
I'm reminded of the old analogy of putting a frog in a saucepan of cold water and then heating it slowly. So long as they're not being forced to watch said frogs being tipped into a vat of boiling water...
After all, look at what happened nearly 10 years ago with the fuel protests, sealing off the delivery depots. And that was with fuel at half the price it is now. See? The slowly boiling frog effect in action...
I think you'd be amazed how much further you're going to have to yank Joe Public's chain before he or she realises. Nobody gives a t*ss any more about anything, not just the services, unless they are directly affected.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: OXFORD
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GrahamO,
Have you lost the plot? Your arguement appears to run, soldiers getting killed on the ground today therefore must buy new kit to prevent that happening therefore must scrap well developed projects from RAF and RN? Please tell if I have got that wrong?
You then additionally indicate general public will not tolerate soldiers being killed and vaguely connect that with scrapping Nimrod Mr4a (which I think has had some 8 billion invested - not sure of exact sum but I know it is huge).
Come on Graham please step back a minute? Everyone is appalled at any loss in Afganistan but some of these platforms could make a difference in that war and as we see on a daily basis coping with future conflict.
What money is not being spent on every form of technology to look after all the troops on the ground (and I include from all 3 services)? I suspect no matter how much money is spent the IED is going to remain the threat to folk on the ground. Perhaps do some reading up on the Vietnam war as well - money spent, technology versus simple insurgent tactics?
Your arguement as you admit is simplistic but so much so it is dangerous. May I suggest do not belittle your brothers in arms but set your targets on why there is not enough money (now) and how UK spends money in many other areas (now and in the future). I am not in a position to fully understand how MOD got itself in such a mess but I suspect some senior officers and CS's should be blushing.
As one of posters made clear future conflicts are going to be very differant and come 2014 the axe will be swinging your way. The key will be flexible agile forces - Land armies of 95000 which can only deploy a fraction of that will be well and truly fairly game for the people in suits (at that point).
To finish - why don't you ask the general public whom you seem to know so well, will they pay 2p or 3p more income tax per pound to help buy new kit in Afghanistan - why do you think politicians have ducked that issue - because it is not a vote winner perhaps? SDSR was nothing more than a rushed botched stampede to save money quickly (front load the pain so the voters forget in 4/5 years time). All of defence has suffered stupid cuts, the severity for the Army has been a little more delayed due to Afghanistan..........
Mos
Have you lost the plot? Your arguement appears to run, soldiers getting killed on the ground today therefore must buy new kit to prevent that happening therefore must scrap well developed projects from RAF and RN? Please tell if I have got that wrong?
You then additionally indicate general public will not tolerate soldiers being killed and vaguely connect that with scrapping Nimrod Mr4a (which I think has had some 8 billion invested - not sure of exact sum but I know it is huge).
Come on Graham please step back a minute? Everyone is appalled at any loss in Afganistan but some of these platforms could make a difference in that war and as we see on a daily basis coping with future conflict.
What money is not being spent on every form of technology to look after all the troops on the ground (and I include from all 3 services)? I suspect no matter how much money is spent the IED is going to remain the threat to folk on the ground. Perhaps do some reading up on the Vietnam war as well - money spent, technology versus simple insurgent tactics?
Your arguement as you admit is simplistic but so much so it is dangerous. May I suggest do not belittle your brothers in arms but set your targets on why there is not enough money (now) and how UK spends money in many other areas (now and in the future). I am not in a position to fully understand how MOD got itself in such a mess but I suspect some senior officers and CS's should be blushing.
As one of posters made clear future conflicts are going to be very differant and come 2014 the axe will be swinging your way. The key will be flexible agile forces - Land armies of 95000 which can only deploy a fraction of that will be well and truly fairly game for the people in suits (at that point).
To finish - why don't you ask the general public whom you seem to know so well, will they pay 2p or 3p more income tax per pound to help buy new kit in Afghanistan - why do you think politicians have ducked that issue - because it is not a vote winner perhaps? SDSR was nothing more than a rushed botched stampede to save money quickly (front load the pain so the voters forget in 4/5 years time). All of defence has suffered stupid cuts, the severity for the Army has been a little more delayed due to Afghanistan..........
Mos
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Graham O
“If the RAF were actually fighting an air war, the situation would be very different, but its not.”
What is your definition of an air war: the Battle of Britain?
The RAF has almost every single capability in its inventory deployed in Afghanistan. In many ways, this fight is an air war just as much as it is a land war. Perhaps you forget how we got in there; how we move and how we protect soldiers under fire.
The fact that our aircraft are relatively immune to Taliban attack is not a reason to denigrate their efforts or funding.
If we did not have the overwhelming advantage provided by air over the soldiers in Afghanistan we would be taking many more casualties.
Just so that we can judge how your master plan would work, perhaps you could tell us what you would spend any extra money on in saving Soldier’s lives. And when you do, tell us whether some of that money might be found from the 50,000+ Army personnel who do not deploy and the multitude of tanks and artillery that is sitting in hermatically sealed huts.
The UK’s future security cannot be decided around the relative value of one service over another in the current conflict (a conflict that is more discretionary than you realise); it must be made on a balanced requirement to meet the Country’s needs, now and in the future. As the PM demonstrated recently, he thinks that includes being able to enforce NFZs; he has already cut the RAF beyond the point where we can do that in any meaningful way. The recent Nimrod R1 reprive is one very obvious case in point.
What is your definition of an air war: the Battle of Britain?
The RAF has almost every single capability in its inventory deployed in Afghanistan. In many ways, this fight is an air war just as much as it is a land war. Perhaps you forget how we got in there; how we move and how we protect soldiers under fire.
The fact that our aircraft are relatively immune to Taliban attack is not a reason to denigrate their efforts or funding.
If we did not have the overwhelming advantage provided by air over the soldiers in Afghanistan we would be taking many more casualties.
Just so that we can judge how your master plan would work, perhaps you could tell us what you would spend any extra money on in saving Soldier’s lives. And when you do, tell us whether some of that money might be found from the 50,000+ Army personnel who do not deploy and the multitude of tanks and artillery that is sitting in hermatically sealed huts.
The UK’s future security cannot be decided around the relative value of one service over another in the current conflict (a conflict that is more discretionary than you realise); it must be made on a balanced requirement to meet the Country’s needs, now and in the future. As the PM demonstrated recently, he thinks that includes being able to enforce NFZs; he has already cut the RAF beyond the point where we can do that in any meaningful way. The recent Nimrod R1 reprive is one very obvious case in point.
The fact that our aircraft are relatively immune to Taliban attack
Other than that - GrahamO seems to be on a very dim and very distant planet. Obviously a senior RAF officer.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mgd, I said "relatively". That was not to dimninsh the very brave flying that goes on lower to the ground. Thankfully, using Graham O's measure of worth, these incidents mostly turn out well, if not a little nerve racking.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh please everyone can't you see that GrahamO is actually trying to play back a view of the general public (and that's what politicians pay heed to) not his own view!!
Absolutely it is! That's a good description of the UK general public after all.
Very very simplistic and a bit stupid too
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
General Karl Eikenberry, the Commander Combined Forces Command Afghanistan in 2007:
Without air and space power, 500 to 600,000 troops would be needed in Afghanistan to achieve the same effects as the 40,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen we have there today. Air and space power provides the asymmetric advantage over the Taliban such that no matter where they choose to fight, coalition forces can bring to bear overwhelming firepower in a matter of minutes. Moreover, putting 500 to 600,000 troops into the country may achieve the same military effect, but it could have a negative impact on the population; such numbers could appear as an occupying force, rather than a security assistance force. In short, there is no substitute for effective air and space power.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone who missed it and are interested in watching, the SDSR Committee session of 9th March is being repeated on the BBC Parliament channel tonight (Sun 13th) starting at 1900. It includes the interviewing of Messrs Hague and Fox.
Thanks for that - I shall give it a miss though.
Listening to Hague droning on always reminds me of Michael Palin as 'Eric Olthwaite' in Ripping Yarns:
'A boring little tit'....
Listening to Hague droning on always reminds me of Michael Palin as 'Eric Olthwaite' in Ripping Yarns:
"It were always raining in Denley Moor, 'cept on days when it were fine; and there weren't many of those - not if you include drizzle as rain. And even if it weren't drizzling, it were overcast and there were a lot of moisture in the air. You'd come home as though it had been raining, even though there had been no evidence of precipitation in the rain gauge outside the town hall..."
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes SDSR does look rather dated already.
I'm sure there's more.
Let's just hope there's no more unexpected events - as that really would cause some headaches....
- The flexibility offered by a CAG would now be useful
- Disbanding any GR4 squadrons seems flawed
- ISTAR cuts don't make any sense either
- Further cuts to either AAR or AT capability are not wise
I'm sure there's more.
Let's just hope there's no more unexpected events - as that really would cause some headaches....