Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

ANALYSIS: Miltary faces 'perfect storm' of budget vs need

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

ANALYSIS: Miltary faces 'perfect storm' of budget vs need

Old 4th Dec 2014, 12:46
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 47
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pure ignorance there fella, well done.
Thelma Viaduct is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2014, 13:13
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: At home
Posts: 1,232
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Quote:
"WHY" are there Foodbanks
So that benefits can be better spent on the "essentials" in life - fags, booze, 50" plasma televisions, Sky subscription, naff bling etc etc.
The simple answer to that is to provide stamps or credits which can only be used for essentials. How much of the benefits money handed out ends up in the hands of loan sharks and utility companies because the poor are on the highest tariff 'pay as you use' meters because they won't pay bills? Before hard cash is given out, the receipients need educating and to demonstrate they can manage it and use it wisely. If the recipients can't prioritise, then the benefits provider should do this.

What makes it worse is that when someone comes off the dole, the benefits stop immediately, leaving the individual to wait a month or more for their first pay packet, thus making them easy pickings for the likes of Wonga as they struggle to make ends meet. Hardly an incentive to get a job.

A mandatory blood test for evidence of drug use before benefits can be received in cash would prevent a lot of it ending up in the hands of dealers.
Mechta is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2014, 13:22
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
Like MoD, there are parts of the NHS which run with supreme efficiency, and parts that are riddled with fraud, corruption and incompetence. In both, the good bits are often those free of direct political influence or staffed by those that resist it.



The defence budget isn’t all spent on equipment and I’ve never seen an answer to the question – are comparisons with other countries made on a like for like basis?



One must look at fixed and variable commitments. Broadly, very different parts of MoD are responsible for each. In simple terms, the former aren’t up for grabs. The potential for savings narrows considerably. These fixed (or very difficult to vary) commitments include the likes of PFI payments. Did I mention fraud, corruption, political influence and lack of bottle?



The tendency to live beyond our means, while hiding the cost in a credit card. This caused much of our country’s recent ills in the first place, at an individual level. I wonder how many went into the red last “Black” Friday? The difference is, the Ministerial policy makers aren’t personally responsible when the bill eventually comes in; they’ve retired on honking great pensions. Similarly, those in MoD who signed their name to false statements that this was a good spend against the defence budget. A responsibility conveniently delegated to them by PUS and Ministers, whose names don’t appear on the contract. In effect, Government policy requires such staff to commit fraud. In fact, the Government and MoD openly admit this.



Then, to “savings”. What does that mean? Savings that do not affect operational effectiveness, or savings for the sake of savings. Usually it means the latter. Our leaders simply don’t want to know about the former, because by definition it exposes prior incompetence and fraud. That is why, for example, the Chief Accounting Officer (PUS) has never implemented the various internal (never mind external) audit reports that spell out in excruciating detail that his senior staffs consciously waste money for short term protectionism.



There is always much chatter about how the defence budget is spent and poor performance. You seldom hear the politicians ask about success stories and how to learn lessons. A year ago I’d have said “Never”, but last year the House of Commons Defence Select Committee Chair (James Arbuthnott at the time) asked this very question and sought a short report on an aircraft programme that was delivered ahead of schedule, under “budget” and to a far better specification than requested. Arbuthnott then stepped down and now the Committee doesn’t want to know. Kudos to Arbuthnott for trying to open the box, but it tells you much that he only did it when he knew he was going. The political pressure from above to perpetuate inefficiency is overwhelming; and it is the same in MoD. (In 1999, half way through that programme, the old Chief of Defence Procurement was up in front of the Public Accounts Committee on the same subject. Instead of telling them the truth, he was deliberately briefed a pack of lies that showed MoD(PE) in a poor light. Why would you do that? The answer is simple. The bar shall not be raised. Always dumb down).



I’d like to see “GOCO” implemented properly. (Oops, shouldn’t put it like that, because Bernard Gray presented it as his own idea. Update and re-issue the 1991 Def Stan). Start with a well-defined domain, like avionics. In parallel, revamp MoD’s commercial operations. There was nothing wrong with the practice of having contractors draft the proposed contract (same Def Stan, and if a GOCO bidder didn’t suggest this I’d exclude him!), leaving a smaller number of better trained MoD staffs to scrutinise them before signing. And forget the nonsense that only Commercial can let contracts – that was and always has been a dangerous fallacy and major constraint. Those simple areas cause so much delay and waste, not to mention diverting highly trained staffs from their primary role when the resultant problems have to be fixed.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2014, 14:48
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 47
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's not a recession, it's a robbery and you're being fooled.

http://youtu.be/7ZCs3eus3YU
Thelma Viaduct is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2014, 15:30
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
The simple answer to that is to provide stamps or credits which can only be used for essentials.
Dream on. I was a milkman briefly in the '90s. Convenience store owners in Leicester would cheerfully take childrens milk tokens for ciggies & booze, leaving the milk bill unpaid.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2014, 16:05
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: At home
Posts: 1,232
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Quote:
The simple answer to that is to provide stamps or credits which can only be used for essentials.
Dream on. I was a milkman briefly in the '90s. Convenience store owners in Leicester would cheerfully take childrens milk tokens for ciggies & booze, leaving the milk bill unpaid.
Fox3, so you're saying because a few people abused a system, we should live with a worse one, rather than punishing those who abused the better one? If you make the fines sufficiently draconian and do spot checks, then the shopkeepers will toe the line.
Mechta is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2014, 16:08
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
non ring fenced departments are looking at another 15-30% cut

In defence I guess that means Army of around 50,000, no F-35, no more Typhoons, carriers mothballed when built and T26 somewhere in the 22nd century
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2014, 16:14
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 47
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This next vid sums up what's wrong with the broken 'system', but I'm sure those on here that thought GW2 was a good idea i.e. the blinkered idiots, will disagree.

http://youtu.be/Hg8c_t0Ba6k
Thelma Viaduct is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2014, 16:25
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
First, it wasn't just a few people. The inability of milkmen to get paid is fundamentally what killed doorstep delivery, in Leicester at least.
Secondly, draconian fines and efficient spot checks don't seem to be either happening or working anywhere else. Not illegal working, not illegal alcohol and cigarette sales, nowhere.
I agree the current system sucks, but I dispute your contention that stamps is a better one. It's a simpler one, agreed, but in my experience it doesn't work.

update: This just in http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...rice-1.2860704

The problem is threefold. Firstly, there are no household economic management lessons in schools, which is ridiculous. Trying to educate people after they are in trouble is bolting the stable door. Secondly, the level of commercial exploitation of benefit recipients is way out of control. The Government needs to get a grip on payday loans, gambling, etc; preferably in my view by banning the lot of them. Irresponsible lending caused 2008, and this is no different. Lastly, if someone needs a washing machine, give them a washing machine. They can't drink, smoke or gamble that.

Back to Defence. The Government is not prepared to cut its commitments to match its capabilities, and has no money to increase capabilities within the current procurement system. There is also a generation of VSOs who aren't prepared to tell them so. This has only one inevitable outcome - defeat.

Last edited by Fox3WheresMyBanana; 4th Dec 2014 at 19:48.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2014, 18:44
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,118
Received 151 Likes on 77 Posts
Now that the UK is out of Afghanistan, just how many Chinooks and C-130s does the country really need? I wouldn't be surprised to see a reduction in the SH fleet, with many aircraft mothballed and for the C-130s to be retired early as Atlas comes into operational service.
Don't be too keen to call ENDEX on Afghanistan BEagle, especially as far as the Chinook force is concerned - UK retains Chinooks in Afghanistan - IHS Jane's 360

It's interesting to note that the Chinooks have been on deployment every year since they entered service in 1981. I'm sure there will be plenty of tasks for them once Afghanistan does finally wind to an end.

As for the C-130s, again I wouldn't be too premature in calling time on them either - UK may retain C-130J Hercules for special forces duties - IHS Jane's 360

I read in AvWeek also that the MoD has begun a study on replacing the centre-wing boxes on a number of the C-130Js, probably related to the SOF option.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2014, 20:59
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 833
Received 46 Likes on 26 Posts
As the ISF notes, the majority of "Welfare" is targeted towards Pensioners

So of the £205 billion or so spent on tax credits and social security benefits about £111 billion is spent on those over pension age and £94 billion on those of working age.

Figure 1 and Table 1 show this breakdown of the 25% of total spending described as "welfare" by the government, alongside the 12% spent on state pensions. 4% goes on "personal social services", 3% on public service pensions, 4% on other benefits for pensioners, and the remaining 14% on benefits for those of working age.
What is welfare spending? - Institute For Fiscal Studies - IFS
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2014, 22:06
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,118
Received 151 Likes on 77 Posts
...and I was almost in danger of getting this thread back on topic **sigh**.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2014, 22:10
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 2,006
Received 16 Likes on 8 Posts
Come, come, Melmothtw, you've been around long enough to know that as soon as someone mentions welfare, you get at least one person who disputes the view portrayed, whereupon the thread turns into Question Time lite...

But thanks for the links - had managed to miss one of them when perusing Janes
Archimedes is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2014, 04:26
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IPPR predicts the next Parliament will need to cut costs in defence budget to tune of £9bn.
Al R is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2014, 05:24
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you want to keep a topic on thread (in any internet forum) simply ignore trolls/trolling, or just be polite/apologetic about digression.

On topic...circa 2010 Stephanie Flaunders, then BBC economics lead journo, wrote a piece re "socially impossible budget cuts" (sorry the link has gone).

Her point being, back in 2010, the level of cuts required to balance the books were simply to big for society to except - ergo they were not achievable and would not happen. She was 100% correct. She said we would get austerity lite plus smoke and mirrors.

I suggest, we are still in the same place, and specifically cutting defence by such a large amount will prove politically challenging. That said, defence is in for a rough time whatever happens.

Off topic...the UK general election is due in a little over 5 months and every political party is committed to balancing the books and austerity in some form or other, so lets be realistic hey.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2014, 09:02
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'd imagine there will be the odd nibble around the edges of the defence budget maybe the odd £Billion, but nothing like cuts of 15-30%. You can probably kiss goodbye to annual pay rises in excess of 1% for a few more years though.

If multi-billion cuts are made then yes certainly, one (or more) major programs will have to be shelved.

Last edited by Willard Whyte; 5th Dec 2014 at 11:47.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2014, 10:09
  #37 (permalink)  
HTB
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Over the hill (and far away)
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
TOFO


Is this the Stephanie Flanders link to which you refer:


BBC - Stephanomics: Fairness and the recovery: Two verdicts for Mr Osborne


note the spelling of surname - she is daughter of the late Michael Flanders, who achieved some fame as half the Flanders and (Donald) Swann duo, performers of inter alia comical songs.


Mister B
HTB is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2014, 11:19
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The High Seas
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Value for Money

Pr00ne raises a very good point. We have the 5th largest defence budget in the world but that doesn't reflect in the size and capability of our armed forces in the global context. Obviously there is a lot of nuance in that - some bigger militaries do lots of off the shelf acquisition, use old/second hand kit or simply offset capability with numbers etc


To my mind, there are 2 reasons for the mis-match- an overwhelming and inefficient desire to achieve absolute value for money on every defence pound and strategic industrial requirements.


On the first point, whilst we absolutely do need to deliver value for money on the budget we have, there is a point in pursuit of that where that desire itself costs money. I think of the MoD scrutiny process, contracting arrangements, approvals staffing etc etc. Whenever we think we have hacked that area, another group of people, with a vote, seem to pop up and so the wheel turns.


As for industrial requirements, it is now pretty clear that the MoD is unable to run effective, competitive tenders due to national strategic requirements to maintain certain industrial capabilities. that, therefore, comes at a cost and one the MoD seems to bear unilaterally. When I last served in the MOD, there was some talk on gaining cross-Whitehall consensus on other depts. contributing to this fixed overhead, but it seems that plan went nowhere as far as I know.


At the end of the day though, we are a democracy and no matter how much we decry the spend on perceived inefficiencies elsewhere or a welfare system that seems to discourage employment and contribution etc, the (lack of) defence awareness within our nation, coupled with the Iraq/Afgh effect, simply doesn't permit the case to be made on behalf of the MOD budget.
Alpha Whiskey is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2014, 12:16
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pastures new
Posts: 354
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
We need to upgrade our nuclear capability.....so I'm told.
We can afford it.....so I'm told
It's not negotiable so all those things that are under review must be less important, like education, transposrt, NHS (which, by the way, spends £7bn per annum on compensating patients for botched operations and the same on fraud....still think it's a good organisation?)
kintyred is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2014, 12:25
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
On the first point, whilst we absolutely do need to deliver value for money on the budget we have, there is a point in pursuit of that where that desire itself costs money. I think of the MoD scrutiny process, contracting arrangements, approvals staffing etc etc. Whenever we think we have hacked that area, another group of people, with a vote, seem to pop up and so the wheel turns.
Requirement Scrutiny is the mandated process by which MoD ensures a proposed spend is “good”. The process itself is not inefficient nor does it cost much – if done properly. It is NOT done properly, and hasn’t been for over 20 years. Successive PUSs, who mandate the process, have been told this on numerous occasions by MoD’s own auditors. I suspect your (justified) view is based on the result of this failure, not the process itself.


As for industrial requirements, it is now pretty clear that the MoD is unable to run effective, competitive tenders
Again, you are correct. While the official policy is “competition”, as a matter of policy MoD has not employed the necessary expertise to run and assess competitions for the same 20+ years. There are other factors. Political interference. Many competitions have run for excruciatingly long periods (years) only for the clear winner to be rejected on an overrule because he is not in a constituency of the Government in power.

More obscurely, in 2000 the Chief of Defence Procurement issued a formal ruling that if Thales (no one else, just Thales) expressed an interest in an ongoing project, the project manager was expected to cancel the contracts and start all over again with Thales. Regardless of cost or delay. (Inability to do the job was taken for granted). In December 2000 he went so far as to uphold disciplinary action against staff for refusing to do this (such an act would never pass the above scrutiny), instead insisting on delivering to time, cost and performance. This was utterly deranged, but was not a one-off act of lunacy. To my personal knowledge this ruling has been upheld at least 5 times in the past year alone, most recently this week!

I’m afraid under such “leadership” those in DE&S who try to do the right thing are stuck between a rock and hard place. 15 years ago, or even 10, it could have been fixed. But today, because there are so very few left who have been taught properly, I see a GOCO type structure as the only way out for MoD. But even then, as I said before, it is highly unlikely they will follow the extant rules, because Bernard Gray won’t want to admit “his” solution is simply to regress to an old policy that actually worked. So, what we’ve got, is a bastardised version which didn’t even draw a bid from a reputable defence contractor.
tucumseh is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.