SDSR 15
In terms of headline figures, the UK certainly "appears" to get less bang for it's buck compared with some other countries. I suspect there is a combination of several factors in play, although I'd struggle to say exactly what proportion of where we are is attributable to each, eg:
- Expensive kit eg nuclear submarines
- Being charged top dollar by a near-monopoly "UK" supplier
- Investing in building and supporting a genuine capability as opposed to trophy assets that arent supported by the less glamorous investment needed to produce genuine capability
- Inefficiency / poor financial control
- The costs of maintaing the strategic UK manufacturing base instead of outsourcing
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
our near neighbours also design their kit from the outset for export
we design for best technical solution................. which is expensive and doesn't attract foreign buyers
we design for best technical solution................. which is expensive and doesn't attract foreign buyers
Amongst other things this article states that a defence review is not due to "conclude" until "the end of the year".
Defence review: 'Spend more' on SAS and drones - BBC News
Defence review: 'Spend more' on SAS and drones - BBC News
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
So, when they mention "spy planes" do they mean more life for Sentinel and Shadow, or they confusing/conflating the term to include a new maritime aircraft (P8?), or perhaps more RC-135s?
For drones do they mean more Reapers or, for maritime if they buy P8, do they mean MQ-4 Triton?
And for drones off the QE, do they mean the ScanEagle and 700 NAS, or are their larger UAV which can be recovered to a deck in all conditions?
For drones do they mean more Reapers or, for maritime if they buy P8, do they mean MQ-4 Triton?
And for drones off the QE, do they mean the ScanEagle and 700 NAS, or are their larger UAV which can be recovered to a deck in all conditions?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ye Gods ORAC - what a question.........
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)"
Or the UKMOD.......
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)"
Or the UKMOD.......
Expensive kit eg nuclear submarines
Being charged top dollar by a near-monopoly "UK" supplier
Investing in building and supporting a genuine capability as opposed to trophy assets that arent supported by the less glamorous investment needed to produce genuine capability
Inefficiency / poor financial control
The costs of maintaing the strategic UK manufacturing base instead of outsourcing
Being charged top dollar by a near-monopoly "UK" supplier
Investing in building and supporting a genuine capability as opposed to trophy assets that arent supported by the less glamorous investment needed to produce genuine capability
Inefficiency / poor financial control
The costs of maintaing the strategic UK manufacturing base instead of outsourcing
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA, I didn't think Trident was being replaced? I thought it was the"just" the submarines at the end of their hull lives?
I may be too cynical in old age but after years of avoiding the "2%" issue, I find it just a tad suspicious that the Government is this week suddenly all for it.
As frostchamber says, I wouldn't be surprised if some creative accounting has taken place and in a few months we're told that achieving 2% entails a cut.
I remain of the opinion MoD should first try not to waste money. Then see what it actually needs. Such matters used to be very carefully hidden, but 99% of people on pprune could easily identify £5Bn poured down the drain in the last few years with little to show for it. Why are politicians willfully blind to this policy of waste? And make no mistake, it IS policy, because MoD commits huge sums to defending those who implement it.
As for the "spend more on SAS", I seem to recall a very embarrassing day when a certain unit submitted a future requirement to certain IPT, only to be told they could have their upgrade that very day as a TA unit was being upgraded and had some old kit lying around. You simply wouldn't believe how common it is to receive an all singing and dancing requirement for kit that other parts of MoD regard as obsolescent. Requirements capture and articulation has been a joke for over 25 years.
As frostchamber says, I wouldn't be surprised if some creative accounting has taken place and in a few months we're told that achieving 2% entails a cut.
I remain of the opinion MoD should first try not to waste money. Then see what it actually needs. Such matters used to be very carefully hidden, but 99% of people on pprune could easily identify £5Bn poured down the drain in the last few years with little to show for it. Why are politicians willfully blind to this policy of waste? And make no mistake, it IS policy, because MoD commits huge sums to defending those who implement it.
As for the "spend more on SAS", I seem to recall a very embarrassing day when a certain unit submitted a future requirement to certain IPT, only to be told they could have their upgrade that very day as a TA unit was being upgraded and had some old kit lying around. You simply wouldn't believe how common it is to receive an all singing and dancing requirement for kit that other parts of MoD regard as obsolescent. Requirements capture and articulation has been a joke for over 25 years.
I wouldn't be surprised if some creative accounting has taken place and in a few months we're told that achieving 2% entails a cut.
Prime Minister David Cameron has indicated the budgets for security services MI5, MI6 and GCHQ could be merged with military defense spending to ensure Britain continues to meet a key NATO spending target.
If you are wondering where the cuts will come, my money is on reservists. This will be done because
1) The Government doesn't have to sack any, it just has to not recruit them
2) Not gaining reservists sounds a lot better than sacking regulars*
3) Those reservists aren't going to get hired anyway; no-one wants the job, and when the Army were forced to come up with a forecast recruiting schedule for 2020, they shifted the bulk of the recruiting to start after 2015 to try to hid the fact that the recruitment drive was, and remains, an abject failure.
*Except that the regulars have already been sacked.
Defence review: Spend more on SAS and drones - Cameron
Edited to add F3WMB said
Quote:
Prime Minister David Cameron has indicated the budgets for security services MI5, MI6 and GCHQ could be merged with military defense spending to ensure Britain continues to meet a key NATO spending target.
http://rt.com/uk/239621-intelligence...e-budget-nato/
Prime Minister David Cameron has indicated the budgets for security services MI5, MI6 and GCHQ could be merged with military defense spending to ensure Britain continues to meet a key NATO spending target.
http://rt.com/uk/239621-intelligence...e-budget-nato/
Last edited by Melchett01; 13th Jul 2015 at 20:11.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't be surprised if some creative accounting has taken place and in a few months we're told that achieving 2% entails a cut.
I read in the news that Michael Fallon appeared to suggest that (elements, as it has never been suggested that the entirety of) the intelligence services budget would not be included in the 2%. Even if it was, the long term trend of growth means the MoD's budget is guaranteed to grow so long as the economy grows, and unless they're planning a monumental expansion of the intelligence community, the vast majority of that money is going to go to the MoD.
I did reference the need to watch out for creative accounting - there will be some - but I'm not in the PPRuNe Eeyore camp on this - I think the 2% commitment is a welcome and positive step. We're now looking at a ringfenced defence budget that will grow in real terms for at least the next 5 years - rather than facing the swingeing cuts that many were predicting. That's not to say everything is rosy but we're in a significantly better place now than we were a week ago.
I don't think what I said is all THAT cynical.
(From my perspective) MoD continues to suffer from past policies of ridding itself of specialist corporate knowledge, and continues to pay ever increasing and astronomical sums on "consultants". As this is an aviation forum, how many technical staffs satisfy the minima for "Suitably Qualified and Experienced" set out 15 years ago? MoD wouldn't reply when asked by an MP, but the figure is commonly held to be about zero.
These are important issues as they lie at the heart of why MoD wastes so much. The Government likes to talk in terms of a £38Bn (or whatever) defence budget, but most here know less than a quarter of that is spent on equipment (which is what most naturally like to discuss). Viewed that way, why is apparently so acceptable to piss over 50% of a years budget away on one project when it was known from Day 1 what would happen? Instead of just dismissing it as "sunk costs" and rewarding those responsible, why not study what went wrong and try to avoid it happening again. It wasn't anything to do with complexity. It was to do with very basic, simple engineering issues and MoD not having anyone in authority who had served at a low enough grade to understand them. The "top down" approach is sod all use if the investigation stops at 2 Star as he's allowed to judge his own case.
No apologies. I know many don't agree with my view that we shouldn't waste money. MoD have formally stated this to Ministers and my MP, so I know how difficult it is to challenge this policy. But if you blindly increase the budget and keep it in the hands of those who tolerate waste, that waste will just increase. As I said some years ago when Gordon Brown described MoD as the "citadel of waste"; the Treasury should dig its heels in and say, no more, until you show a commitment to avoiding conscious waste. Same applies to most Departments of State. You may find someone like-minded in the Treasury, but you won't find anyone in MoD prepared to openly propose such a thing.
(From my perspective) MoD continues to suffer from past policies of ridding itself of specialist corporate knowledge, and continues to pay ever increasing and astronomical sums on "consultants". As this is an aviation forum, how many technical staffs satisfy the minima for "Suitably Qualified and Experienced" set out 15 years ago? MoD wouldn't reply when asked by an MP, but the figure is commonly held to be about zero.
These are important issues as they lie at the heart of why MoD wastes so much. The Government likes to talk in terms of a £38Bn (or whatever) defence budget, but most here know less than a quarter of that is spent on equipment (which is what most naturally like to discuss). Viewed that way, why is apparently so acceptable to piss over 50% of a years budget away on one project when it was known from Day 1 what would happen? Instead of just dismissing it as "sunk costs" and rewarding those responsible, why not study what went wrong and try to avoid it happening again. It wasn't anything to do with complexity. It was to do with very basic, simple engineering issues and MoD not having anyone in authority who had served at a low enough grade to understand them. The "top down" approach is sod all use if the investigation stops at 2 Star as he's allowed to judge his own case.
No apologies. I know many don't agree with my view that we shouldn't waste money. MoD have formally stated this to Ministers and my MP, so I know how difficult it is to challenge this policy. But if you blindly increase the budget and keep it in the hands of those who tolerate waste, that waste will just increase. As I said some years ago when Gordon Brown described MoD as the "citadel of waste"; the Treasury should dig its heels in and say, no more, until you show a commitment to avoiding conscious waste. Same applies to most Departments of State. You may find someone like-minded in the Treasury, but you won't find anyone in MoD prepared to openly propose such a thing.
Which ones do you mean - and what do you mean by that?
Scramble
Armed forces job cuts reach target three years early - BBC News
..as I said a fortnight ago.
The Army Reserves plan has been rated 'Unachievable' by the Government's own Major Projects Authority
..as I said a fortnight ago.
The Army Reserves plan has been rated 'Unachievable' by the Government's own Major Projects Authority
The graphic in that BBC article shows the RAF regular numbers increasing from 31,630 in 2015 to 35,000 in 2020, an increase of 3,400 odd. That's a 10% increase.
What's that all about, and what are the extra personnel for?
Of course, those figures are all pre the next SDSR!
What's that all about, and what are the extra personnel for?
Of course, those figures are all pre the next SDSR!
Which ones do you mean - and what do you mean by that?