SDSR 15
Leon,
What a great picture. And a good point.
Benefits for those that need it, absolutely with you there!
Melchett,
You are, of course right, but I really don't believe that this government will pull the plug on either. I can see them reducing numbers. That said, it may depend on how much they can save in cuts; their promise to kill the deficit for a second term could well override other considerations. Dave may not be staying for a third term, but the party will want too. Failing to balance the books a second time would not look good in five years time!
What a great picture. And a good point.
Benefits for those that need it, absolutely with you there!
Melchett,
You are, of course right, but I really don't believe that this government will pull the plug on either. I can see them reducing numbers. That said, it may depend on how much they can save in cuts; their promise to kill the deficit for a second term could well override other considerations. Dave may not be staying for a third term, but the party will want too. Failing to balance the books a second time would not look good in five years time!
I'm fairly sure we're on the same page Courtney, but if they do reduce numbers at what point does the programme become operationally non-viable? Half a dozen airframes on a 60,000T carrier would look rather silly and would be just enough to defend the ship let alone be operationally effective.
One of the other options I can see, given that the USMC are tied into the same programme, is a quiet back room deal for the US to either fund more UK ac or give a us very good deal on the side to ensure the UK but goes ahead as planned just to guarantee their own future capability.
One of the other options I can see, given that the USMC are tied into the same programme, is a quiet back room deal for the US to either fund more UK ac or give a us very good deal on the side to ensure the UK but goes ahead as planned just to guarantee their own future capability.
Melchett, I believe we are. As for minimum numbers, I doubt it would go to six. I know that was just an example. The Government is aware of UK industry's significant role in the project and has configured (with a slight stumble) the new carriers according to what is coming. But the maintenance of reasonable numbers would certainly not rule out the sort of quiet deals you suggest.
ATG, I truly do hope it works. The fact that I feel free to debate its shortcomings and question its design doesn't mean I don't want it to succeed. But you do raise an interesting point.
ATG, I truly do hope it works. The fact that I feel free to debate its shortcomings and question its design doesn't mean I don't want it to succeed. But you do raise an interesting point.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First Lord West now ex Rear Admiral parry.
POWERLESS... that's the pitiful state of our Armed Forces, warns a top admiral, as savage defence cuts leave Britain dangerously vulnerable | Daily Mail Online
I know it's the Daily Fail but they don't appear to have meddled with the extract.
POWERLESS... that's the pitiful state of our Armed Forces, warns a top admiral, as savage defence cuts leave Britain dangerously vulnerable | Daily Mail Online
I know it's the Daily Fail but they don't appear to have meddled with the extract.
I remember seeing some sort of "budget balancing calculator" linked to by a Financial Times article where you could try out your own ideas about how to reduce the deficit. I remember a number of the comments saying "I put defence to zero....but...".
So it's obvious to me that some portion of people don't understand what they're getting from defence. I would guess that everyone sees their own point of view very clearly and not others. So it's at least possible that some of us don't see what we get from spending money on aid because we don't know anything about it.
So it's obvious to me that some portion of people don't understand what they're getting from defence. I would guess that everyone sees their own point of view very clearly and not others. So it's at least possible that some of us don't see what we get from spending money on aid because we don't know anything about it.
Last edited by t43562; 31st May 2015 at 10:33. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: The guest house
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's Torygraph
Break up the RAF and stop buying British - Telegraph
Keep Lewis Page away from the decision making. It's a shame he's not aware that the C-17 and C-130 production lines have a finite lifespan with all remaining aircraft to be produced are accounted for.
However I do agree that we need to break the BAES monopoly.
Keep Lewis Page away from the decision making. It's a shame he's not aware that the C-17 and C-130 production lines have a finite lifespan with all remaining aircraft to be produced are accounted for.
However I do agree that we need to break the BAES monopoly.
we should send our new carriers overseas to have catapults fitted. We should lease a fleet of F-18s.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Dorset
Age: 25
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, if I've ever heard of wasting money, it would be 'scrapping' (Typhoon is made from a lot of composites anyway so there'd be little scrap value) the Typhoon fleet, that would be utterly stupendous in my opinion and a waste of money greater than that wasted on MRA4. Sure, BAE needs a kick up the arse, but personally I don't agree with him on much else.
Tom
Tom
For me the answer clear - if we want better armed forces (which I for one do) we should simply pay more tax.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OP's original contention was more about methodology than the specifics of what we should procure. Briefly,that we base our initial decision making on what is needed to deal with the threat rather than on what we can afford. I see two major pitfalls to this approach; the "threat" could mean all sorts of things depending on who you ask (anyone feel like tackling the North Korean nuclear programme?) and secondly, whether you're a schoolboy buying an airfix jet-fighter, or a govt buying a real one, is any real-world spending decision taken this way?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It would seem that Mr Page 'benefited' from a RAF University Air Squadron (Cambridge ?) place 1988/1991 ... 
http://lewispage.bl0gsp0t.co.uk
Just edit 0's for o's if you wish to read more ... I wonder how long it will be before he appears on The Phoenix Think Tank authors list ?
http://lewispage.bl0gsp0t.co.uk
Just edit 0's for o's if you wish to read more ... I wonder how long it will be before he appears on The Phoenix Think Tank authors list ?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see two major pitfalls to this approach; the "threat" could mean all sorts of things depending on who you ask
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no place to "start" with this abortion of an article.
What a naive fellow. He seems to have learned nothing about how Defence or Capital Programs (requirements, contracts etc) work during his service. His research is equally flawed and one-sided in order to deliver his coup-de-grace at the end.
His chants about BAEs are recycled opinion which a lot of people (including myself) agree with but the rest is fantasy.
What a naive fellow. He seems to have learned nothing about how Defence or Capital Programs (requirements, contracts etc) work during his service. His research is equally flawed and one-sided in order to deliver his coup-de-grace at the end.
His chants about BAEs are recycled opinion which a lot of people (including myself) agree with but the rest is fantasy.
SDSR 15
What disappoints me most is that the Telegraph, supposedly an intellectual broadsheet, would pay such a moron to write for them. Aside from his opinions and ideas, which are mostly complete tosh, his standard of writing is no better than a GCSE student. It's almost like he wrote it for the readership of the Sun and sent it to the wrong editor.
Having said all of that how do I get a job like his? We all like to think we know everything and given half an hour in a crew room we could all solve the problems in the MOD over a coffee and a Bourbon biscuit. The reality is though, that it is far more complex than us mere minions appreciate. Lewis Page was and still is a minion whose opinions are frankly worthless. I could give my opinions on his article but it would be no more accurate than his. I just wish I could persuade an idiotic editor that I was credible and I could make some money out of it.
BV
Having said all of that how do I get a job like his? We all like to think we know everything and given half an hour in a crew room we could all solve the problems in the MOD over a coffee and a Bourbon biscuit. The reality is though, that it is far more complex than us mere minions appreciate. Lewis Page was and still is a minion whose opinions are frankly worthless. I could give my opinions on his article but it would be no more accurate than his. I just wish I could persuade an idiotic editor that I was credible and I could make some money out of it.
BV
Mr Page is a simpleton of the first order, making his arguments within a stovepipe of his RN experience, rather than looking at any possible wider ramifications.
I fully admit that I haven't spent much time in research, but he really isn't worth it, but a quick search produced the following information:
UK defence industry: in numbers - Telegraph
Ok, so it's dated 2011, but nevertheless, it says, amongst other things, that:#
£35bn - Annual turnover of UK defence industry
£7.2bn - Value of UK defence exports in 2009.
300,000 - Number of people employed by the defence industry overall in the UK.
10pc - Proportion of UK manufacturing made up by defence
40,000 - Number of employees BAE Systems has in the UK
So, Mr Page devastates the UK defence industry by buying foreign. This results in a major loss of our most high tech manufacturing industry. Result, according to him it's that our defence budget is spent more efficiently on cheaper (although he also says JSF is "cripplingly expensive - make your mind up!!) off the shelf foreign items - yes? MAYBE. But what about the effect on the UK governments finances? What makes him think the defence budget will remain unaltered in such a situation. How much corporation tax is lost on that £35Bn turnover? How many jobs are lost in the defence industry (and don't tell me they can just go out and get new jobs). What is the cost to the government of losing a tax payer, on probably above average wages, who becomes a benefit recipient and therefore a tax burden? Say a switch from + to - of £20,000+. Multiply that by what, 100,000?
So how many £Bn of income does the government actually lose in this situation? Answers on a postcard please Mr Page.
BAES shouldn't have a right to MOD orders, but like most things in the grown up world (yes I'm talking to you Mr Page), things aren't as simple as they may at first appear!!
As for his comment about tanks, maybe somebody should tell him that the Germans have just got some of their old ones out of mothballs - thanks to that nice Mr Putin!!
I fully admit that I haven't spent much time in research, but he really isn't worth it, but a quick search produced the following information:
UK defence industry: in numbers - Telegraph
Ok, so it's dated 2011, but nevertheless, it says, amongst other things, that:#
£35bn - Annual turnover of UK defence industry
£7.2bn - Value of UK defence exports in 2009.
300,000 - Number of people employed by the defence industry overall in the UK.
10pc - Proportion of UK manufacturing made up by defence
40,000 - Number of employees BAE Systems has in the UK
So, Mr Page devastates the UK defence industry by buying foreign. This results in a major loss of our most high tech manufacturing industry. Result, according to him it's that our defence budget is spent more efficiently on cheaper (although he also says JSF is "cripplingly expensive - make your mind up!!) off the shelf foreign items - yes? MAYBE. But what about the effect on the UK governments finances? What makes him think the defence budget will remain unaltered in such a situation. How much corporation tax is lost on that £35Bn turnover? How many jobs are lost in the defence industry (and don't tell me they can just go out and get new jobs). What is the cost to the government of losing a tax payer, on probably above average wages, who becomes a benefit recipient and therefore a tax burden? Say a switch from + to - of £20,000+. Multiply that by what, 100,000?
So how many £Bn of income does the government actually lose in this situation? Answers on a postcard please Mr Page.
BAES shouldn't have a right to MOD orders, but like most things in the grown up world (yes I'm talking to you Mr Page), things aren't as simple as they may at first appear!!
As for his comment about tanks, maybe somebody should tell him that the Germans have just got some of their old ones out of mothballs - thanks to that nice Mr Putin!!