SDSR 15
The JHC FOB and assorted CIs were a ridiculous attempt to combine the traditions and ethics of 3 services....and then had "Best practise is spelt A.R.M.Y." applied to it. The formation and gunnery CIs were appalling, and driven around Lynx/Apache needs and GPMG respectively. All attempts to talk sense were met, somewhere, by a senior AAC hood who would end the debate, even if we proved that the policy was not StanAg or ATP-49 compliant. The only discernable change I see is that the answer is now 'that's not how we did it in Afg' as opposed to 'that's not what we did in NI'. After 16 years JHC still doesn't have a single standards organisation to enforce the ever changing regs. I'm really not missing the avalanche of diktats and STARS currencies that flying in JHC now requires.
The AAC will never leave MW unless AH is chopped - they made sure the trg is there to safeguard the base. The proposed CH47 move to Yeovilton and subsequently Belvedere died because no savings could be found early enough post-move to make political capital or secure military advancement.
Andrew, you're clearly a FJ adherent but I've fag packetted your circa 150 jet package at £10Bn+ for the equipment alone, plus at least the same for the other supporting DLoDs. You'll not save that much by mothballing a dozen Chinooks! The only big ticket item in that bracket is Successor, or you'd have to bunch up Scavenger, FRES, T26, AH CSP and a few more.
In sum, the army would love to stop paying for the RAF's helicopters, the RN want to drag CHF back and the RAF guys at Andover would leave in a flash to get back into a light blue reporting chain. Let's end the experiment and disband JHC and allow the SH force to join or become an RAF Group, the CHF to go back to the FAA full time and for a smaller DAAvn to reform to look after the smaller AAC.
The AAC will never leave MW unless AH is chopped - they made sure the trg is there to safeguard the base. The proposed CH47 move to Yeovilton and subsequently Belvedere died because no savings could be found early enough post-move to make political capital or secure military advancement.
Andrew, you're clearly a FJ adherent but I've fag packetted your circa 150 jet package at £10Bn+ for the equipment alone, plus at least the same for the other supporting DLoDs. You'll not save that much by mothballing a dozen Chinooks! The only big ticket item in that bracket is Successor, or you'd have to bunch up Scavenger, FRES, T26, AH CSP and a few more.
In sum, the army would love to stop paying for the RAF's helicopters, the RN want to drag CHF back and the RAF guys at Andover would leave in a flash to get back into a light blue reporting chain. Let's end the experiment and disband JHC and allow the SH force to join or become an RAF Group, the CHF to go back to the FAA full time and for a smaller DAAvn to reform to look after the smaller AAC.
GD107,
It's not purely Army, though by dint of the number of aircraft they had in 97-99 when it was being formed they have a larger number of posts than both the RAF and the RN. But, it's a 2* notionally purple command that sits under Land and has to fight its corner with more 'traditional' Army interests. Its not fair to accuse the RAF guys in there of being 'yes men' any more than it is to criticise the Army guys for being parochial. The RAF retains full command of the pers and aircraft, but day to day, the Army is in charge. My point is that as an institution it now seems flawed and inefficient to some.
Perhaps it is interesting that few (any?) of the current SH Mafia at the top of the RAF at the moment have done a Senior appointment in JHC above Gp Capt?
It's not purely Army, though by dint of the number of aircraft they had in 97-99 when it was being formed they have a larger number of posts than both the RAF and the RN. But, it's a 2* notionally purple command that sits under Land and has to fight its corner with more 'traditional' Army interests. Its not fair to accuse the RAF guys in there of being 'yes men' any more than it is to criticise the Army guys for being parochial. The RAF retains full command of the pers and aircraft, but day to day, the Army is in charge. My point is that as an institution it now seems flawed and inefficient to some.
Perhaps it is interesting that few (any?) of the current SH Mafia at the top of the RAF at the moment have done a Senior appointment in JHC above Gp Capt?
Evalu8ter,
Not really a surprise. If you're light blue and going places you'll go to MoD, if you're not quite top level material it's 1 Group and the also-rans go to JHC. Even the Crab 2* commanders of JHC have finished their careers there. Probably says all that needs to be said about RAF buy-in to the JHC concept.
Not really a surprise. If you're light blue and going places you'll go to MoD, if you're not quite top level material it's 1 Group and the also-rans go to JHC. Even the Crab 2* commanders of JHC have finished their careers there. Probably says all that needs to be said about RAF buy-in to the JHC concept.
......and back to SDSR 15.....
I'm no fan of 'Call me Dave' or indeed any other politician who never had a real job. However, he was very clear on the Tory position on the Andrew Marr show this morning. Post the General Election and if the Tories remain in power - NHS to be ring fenced (standard all party line) and the 30Bn GBP savings that would need to be found would come primarily off the welfare budget. When pushed on Defence, Cameron said he did not wish to see any cuts under his leadership for the next 5 years and particularly not with personnel. The 2% of GDP spending remains a key figure.
So we'll just have to see but at least the battle lines are far more clear than the last election. Tories will hammer welfare. Labour will probably do exactly the opposite and hammer every other Govt Dept instead.
Over to you, voters.......
I'm no fan of 'Call me Dave' or indeed any other politician who never had a real job. However, he was very clear on the Tory position on the Andrew Marr show this morning. Post the General Election and if the Tories remain in power - NHS to be ring fenced (standard all party line) and the 30Bn GBP savings that would need to be found would come primarily off the welfare budget. When pushed on Defence, Cameron said he did not wish to see any cuts under his leadership for the next 5 years and particularly not with personnel. The 2% of GDP spending remains a key figure.
So we'll just have to see but at least the battle lines are far more clear than the last election. Tories will hammer welfare. Labour will probably do exactly the opposite and hammer every other Govt Dept instead.
Over to you, voters.......
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cameron said he did not wish to see any cuts under his leadership for the next 5 years and particularly not with personnel. The 2% of GDP spending remains a key figure.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Mos Eisley
Age: 48
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrewn is likely to be right about RW - all those Chinooks for what exactly? Either sell some, or scrap the oldest, or put some in store - not the first time we've had a number of Chinooks in long-term storage...MM4 we may well need the level of Chinooks that we currently have for future needs, but how about the extra ones which are soon to arrive, years too late for Afghanistan?
Disagree about FJ though, in particular the bit about buying more Hawks - why even aspire to that when the MFTS lot reckon 10 Tucano replacements will be enough for future needs? Not that they are right, but try articulating the requirement for more AFT platforms when we already have nearly three times as many as we will T-6s
Disagree about FJ though, in particular the bit about buying more Hawks - why even aspire to that when the MFTS lot reckon 10 Tucano replacements will be enough for future needs? Not that they are right, but try articulating the requirement for more AFT platforms when we already have nearly three times as many as we will T-6s
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E8 - I wouldn't say I was biased towards FJ, and I think events have proven that the stated intent to get down to 5or6 frontline FJ sqns is utter madness! It wasn't that long ago that AD and Bomber sqns were each in double figures, and there's no way we will get back to that situation, but neither must we go to the other extreme. As one of the Airships put it (Torpy?) "Quantity has a quality all of its own".
OafOrf - we might be at cross purposes, I'm thinking of the extra Hawk 100srs buy as yes, potentially some additional capacity for Trg but more likely to take on the other tasks that the T1s currently undertake, be that 736NAS, 100Sq, Reds, CFS, etc... I'm not wedded to new build and see no reason why T1 couldn't soldier on - most of them are already akin to a "triggers brush" anyway!
PartyAnimal - I too am interested to see how CMD will navigate the 2% challenge (that he laid down). If, as you suggest, there is the appetite to adhere to it then common sense may be just around the corner - but I wont hold my breath.
OafOrf - we might be at cross purposes, I'm thinking of the extra Hawk 100srs buy as yes, potentially some additional capacity for Trg but more likely to take on the other tasks that the T1s currently undertake, be that 736NAS, 100Sq, Reds, CFS, etc... I'm not wedded to new build and see no reason why T1 couldn't soldier on - most of them are already akin to a "triggers brush" anyway!
PartyAnimal - I too am interested to see how CMD will navigate the 2% challenge (that he laid down). If, as you suggest, there is the appetite to adhere to it then common sense may be just around the corner - but I wont hold my breath.
OafOrf, Andrew
Err what would we do now with more jets? Support more airshows? Unlike a FJ a RW has a meaningful set of non-combat roles for use in peacetime both at home and abroad. One of the reasons we were short of lift in Afg was Labour's culling of the SABR programme, likely supported by MoD to safeguard more sacred cows such as Typhoon/F35. If UK policy is QRA for UK Airspace, SS delivery and a limited amount of bespoke interventions then we don't need any more; We've spunked £32Bn on Typhoon because it's X times better than a Tornado, ergo, for the same capability you need X times less - you can't have it both ways if you insist on having an all 'high end' force.
Do I think 5x Typhoon and 2x F35 Sqns are enough? No, because history tells us we'll get dragged into a persistent conflict again and we'll wear out frames, people and budgets with such numbers. We'll never get back to 20 plus FJ Sqns again, but I would support either a modestly increased number of F35B and/or F35C (probably a better GR4 replacement) and an increased role for Tier 2 aircraft like Scorpion to operate in 'follow on' ops so you can reset your 'first team'. Don't forget that you should probably add 39 and 13 Sqns to your FJ OrBat..........
Will it happen? No. There is no money, the FJ force simply cannot be cut any more and remain credible. It might be a whole fleet again - Merlin 4 would be a more sensible target, in terms of pure capability, than a handful of Chinooks ( though, in some respects, having a proper 'reserve' pool of airframes would make mods a lot easier - RW don't have the luxury of attrition factored into purchases...)
Err what would we do now with more jets? Support more airshows? Unlike a FJ a RW has a meaningful set of non-combat roles for use in peacetime both at home and abroad. One of the reasons we were short of lift in Afg was Labour's culling of the SABR programme, likely supported by MoD to safeguard more sacred cows such as Typhoon/F35. If UK policy is QRA for UK Airspace, SS delivery and a limited amount of bespoke interventions then we don't need any more; We've spunked £32Bn on Typhoon because it's X times better than a Tornado, ergo, for the same capability you need X times less - you can't have it both ways if you insist on having an all 'high end' force.
Do I think 5x Typhoon and 2x F35 Sqns are enough? No, because history tells us we'll get dragged into a persistent conflict again and we'll wear out frames, people and budgets with such numbers. We'll never get back to 20 plus FJ Sqns again, but I would support either a modestly increased number of F35B and/or F35C (probably a better GR4 replacement) and an increased role for Tier 2 aircraft like Scorpion to operate in 'follow on' ops so you can reset your 'first team'. Don't forget that you should probably add 39 and 13 Sqns to your FJ OrBat..........
Will it happen? No. There is no money, the FJ force simply cannot be cut any more and remain credible. It might be a whole fleet again - Merlin 4 would be a more sensible target, in terms of pure capability, than a handful of Chinooks ( though, in some respects, having a proper 'reserve' pool of airframes would make mods a lot easier - RW don't have the luxury of attrition factored into purchases...)
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Mos Eisley
Age: 48
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think we're going to get more jets and I don't think we should waste our breath trying to make a case. Losing green Merlin does indeed make more sense than trimming Chinook numbers but the Navy can probably make a better case for CHF than the RAF can for 60 odd Chinooks. Watch out Puma and Benson...
And any talk of P-8 is nonsense. Tornado? Gone in 12 months.
And any talk of P-8 is nonsense. Tornado? Gone in 12 months.
Tornado? Gone in 12 months.
And any talk of P-8 is nonsense.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noooooooo.....please,
SDSR and this thread is not about what capabilities/aircraft to cut, but to establish that if politically the UK is not going to follow an isolationist Foreign policy then Defence spending will need to remain at 2% GDP (plus whatever International Development costs if it really is coming under Defence
).
We know that it took sad harsh lessons of Afghan to eventually convince the politicians of the day to buy more CH47, we know that the RN has spent much effort in convincing the Politicians/MoD that FASH/SABR whatever it was called was a genuine requirement that cannot be delivered by CH47s alone, we know from the NAO report even before Afghan we were short of tactical air mobility by a considerable margin.....
And yet yet again we (subtly) begin to point fingers at aircraft types that could be chopped.
The key to any future Op (big and small) is the term sustainability ( referred to on this thread as persistence). Don't we learn anything from very recent history? IS came out of the blue and we thought the political gesture of a few Tonkas would do the job until the headlines died down - and within a couple of months the global politicians start to refer to the campaign against the spread of IS taking 3 years plus. Even the Ebola crisis ain't going away quick.
Of course for a short term Falklands style campaign the Armed Forces would try its damnedest to pull the rabbit out of the hat, and yes 'best effort' and 'more with less' and other David Brent sayings might actually just work (I personally have my doubts as the experience on the shop floor is not what it use to be), but when it comes to any enduring campaign then both personnel and equipment will become very tired very quickly unless there is depth and true genuine reserves.
SDSR 15/16 should be all about putting right the rushed SDSR 10 that had the hidden agenda of saving money (I naively thought it was genuinely taking a long term strategic view). If the country cannot afford what it already expects its military to deliver, and continues pushing people out of the door, then SDSR 15/16 should realign the Politicians and nations expectations accordingly.
SDSR and this thread is not about what capabilities/aircraft to cut, but to establish that if politically the UK is not going to follow an isolationist Foreign policy then Defence spending will need to remain at 2% GDP (plus whatever International Development costs if it really is coming under Defence
).We know that it took sad harsh lessons of Afghan to eventually convince the politicians of the day to buy more CH47, we know that the RN has spent much effort in convincing the Politicians/MoD that FASH/SABR whatever it was called was a genuine requirement that cannot be delivered by CH47s alone, we know from the NAO report even before Afghan we were short of tactical air mobility by a considerable margin.....
And yet yet again we (subtly) begin to point fingers at aircraft types that could be chopped.
The key to any future Op (big and small) is the term sustainability ( referred to on this thread as persistence). Don't we learn anything from very recent history? IS came out of the blue and we thought the political gesture of a few Tonkas would do the job until the headlines died down - and within a couple of months the global politicians start to refer to the campaign against the spread of IS taking 3 years plus. Even the Ebola crisis ain't going away quick.
Of course for a short term Falklands style campaign the Armed Forces would try its damnedest to pull the rabbit out of the hat, and yes 'best effort' and 'more with less' and other David Brent sayings might actually just work (I personally have my doubts as the experience on the shop floor is not what it use to be), but when it comes to any enduring campaign then both personnel and equipment will become very tired very quickly unless there is depth and true genuine reserves.
SDSR 15/16 should be all about putting right the rushed SDSR 10 that had the hidden agenda of saving money (I naively thought it was genuinely taking a long term strategic view). If the country cannot afford what it already expects its military to deliver, and continues pushing people out of the door, then SDSR 15/16 should realign the Politicians and nations expectations accordingly.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Northwest
Age: 64
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. Quote:
Cameron said he did not wish to see any cuts under his leadership for the next 5 years and particularly not with personnel. The 2% of GDP spending remains a key figure.
Interesting, although not more cuts and continuing with 2% GDP aren't exactly the same thing. Still, if they do actually commit to the 2% GDP, that will suddenly mean a lot more money than expected...could the dream possibly be a potential reality?
That wasn't what a certain 2 star from Main Building has been telling civilians -DES/DIO and DBS to take the brunt of the cuts because we - UK PLC are still broke and frontline first will be the order of the day when the treasury call after the election for big savings- Serco management of DBS has done all the low hanging fruit savings and their contract ends in 2016 so they won't want to bid again. DES and DIO will be required to produce a larger proportion of the savings. I suspect that wholesale sell off to the private sector is in order which will cost us more than it will save.
Other Departments are finding that the nice private sector run contracts let out since 2010 aren't producing savings and the service provided is pants as my daughter would put it. The Cabinet Office is said to be under pressure to bin the arrangements.
Cameron said he did not wish to see any cuts under his leadership for the next 5 years and particularly not with personnel. The 2% of GDP spending remains a key figure.
Interesting, although not more cuts and continuing with 2% GDP aren't exactly the same thing. Still, if they do actually commit to the 2% GDP, that will suddenly mean a lot more money than expected...could the dream possibly be a potential reality?
That wasn't what a certain 2 star from Main Building has been telling civilians -DES/DIO and DBS to take the brunt of the cuts because we - UK PLC are still broke and frontline first will be the order of the day when the treasury call after the election for big savings- Serco management of DBS has done all the low hanging fruit savings and their contract ends in 2016 so they won't want to bid again. DES and DIO will be required to produce a larger proportion of the savings. I suspect that wholesale sell off to the private sector is in order which will cost us more than it will save.
Other Departments are finding that the nice private sector run contracts let out since 2010 aren't producing savings and the service provided is pants as my daughter would put it. The Cabinet Office is said to be under pressure to bin the arrangements.
Other departments are finding that the nice private sector contracts let since 2010 (or perhaps since the start of contractorisation in circa 1992) aren't producing the savings and the service provided is pants
well none of us never forecast that, did we?!??
From today's Torygraph
Defence won't win votes - so Cameron will keep on cutting - Telegraph
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
baffled as to why SERCO won't bid again - they are in place, they have a contract that is blue chip...... all they have to do is keep cutting. bring in more E European workers, get more secondhand kit from various places........
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Northwest
Age: 64
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serco won't bid because the easy savings have been made, they will only get a management payment not the big bucks for making savings. the Dept will try to tighten the contract and penalise the contractor more severely for failure in future- oops civilians got paid several days early a few months ago , mistakes like this will be costly.
Also as areas are sold off -there is recognition that another vers exercise is unlikely, the contract will be worth less. With another 5 years of 1% pay restraint retaining staff in Abbeywood will be harder than it already is - pay peanuts and you get monkeys.
Also as areas are sold off -there is recognition that another vers exercise is unlikely, the contract will be worth less. With another 5 years of 1% pay restraint retaining staff in Abbeywood will be harder than it already is - pay peanuts and you get monkeys.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I see that DSG (well respected for fixing broken vehicles in AFG) have just been sold off for a pittance!
All staff & capability remain in place as do current facilities.
Babcock have taken on a £900m contract which would have cost the MoD £1.4 billion to fulfil.
The MoD no longer has to feed and fund part of the logistics chain - thus freeing up spare cash for front line things.
Babcock have the ability and scope to develop the current DSG capabilities
and the MoD pockets £140m (that's half a P8!)
Was this such a bad idea
All staff & capabilities......facilities
Babcock have.........to fulfil
The MOD no longer has to feed and fund part of the logistics chain
Babcock the ability ... to develop the DSG facilities
Sorry but having lived through numerous years of cost effective, good deal contractorisation I have yet to witness any service delivery
, PFI or use of contractors that has not resulted in the loss of capability, flexibility or military ethos even if it has delivered a short term, short lived saving to the budget.Oh and of course any contractor has to make a profit (something that Defence does need to do), otherwise their shareholders will soon start to complain - then watch the cuts hit.