SDSR 15
It might "hit home", but at the end of the day, decisions like this are made (generally) on a personal level, with relationships to the fore. If CMD and Gideon (or Gromit and Ball-ache) don't like the people bringing the argument, or need to balance some internal politics* in order to achieve a more important task, then it doesn't matter if some poor bugger has crafted a beautiful piece of staff work on OPVs or the need for Strategic Airlift - it will all go by the wayside. Rant and wail all you like, but it's the truth, and we shouldn't have it any other way. And that's likely the reason that UKSF, CASD and GCHQ/SIS/BSS will nearly always win any funding battle.
*Or coalition politics!
*Or coalition politics!
So from an aviation perspective, what do we think is actually likely to be announced? Based on the HERRICK drawdown but balanced against a planned 3 years plus on SHADER, what would you do as a politician to balance the books?
I'd have bet a lot on an accelerated GR4 OSD, but considering the SHADER burden, is that likely? Or can Reaper take on an increased ISR/CAS/AI role there to compensate? Does the Typhoon Force have enough capacity to mount an enduring AI det to Aki?
What about airlift; if we're staging out of Aki for the next 3 years, and we're committed to A400M, do we need to maintain the same amount of C17s and C130s? With no land forces committed to SHADER will we see cuts in helicopters?
Will we see Sentinel and Shadow persist? Will we see the rumoured P8 buy; is that more likely than most with a refocus to the UK over Afghanistan?
Mostly Devil's Advocate stuff; we all know what we'd want, and we all know we're probably facing more demands and more requirements than we'll get people and equipment to service. Against a background of low public support and awareness post-Afghanistan, and a likely lack of support for deeper engagement in Iraq, what stuff is safe?
I'd have bet a lot on an accelerated GR4 OSD, but considering the SHADER burden, is that likely? Or can Reaper take on an increased ISR/CAS/AI role there to compensate? Does the Typhoon Force have enough capacity to mount an enduring AI det to Aki?
What about airlift; if we're staging out of Aki for the next 3 years, and we're committed to A400M, do we need to maintain the same amount of C17s and C130s? With no land forces committed to SHADER will we see cuts in helicopters?
Will we see Sentinel and Shadow persist? Will we see the rumoured P8 buy; is that more likely than most with a refocus to the UK over Afghanistan?
Mostly Devil's Advocate stuff; we all know what we'd want, and we all know we're probably facing more demands and more requirements than we'll get people and equipment to service. Against a background of low public support and awareness post-Afghanistan, and a likely lack of support for deeper engagement in Iraq, what stuff is safe?
Even if the politicians were honest and knew what they were doing.......
...I'll repeat what I've said before - There Is No Money.
Treasury sees £25billion shortfall from income tax receipts amid low wage growth | This is Money
The Treasury is out £108 bn, £32 bn of which is lower Income Tax and NI due to low wages, which is the same size as the entire Defence budget.
..and not one penny of the impact of lower wages on Government receipts was factored into any of the studies that showed that migrant labour is a Good Thing.
...I'll repeat what I've said before - There Is No Money.
Treasury sees £25billion shortfall from income tax receipts amid low wage growth | This is Money
The Treasury is out £108 bn, £32 bn of which is lower Income Tax and NI due to low wages, which is the same size as the entire Defence budget.
..and not one penny of the impact of lower wages on Government receipts was factored into any of the studies that showed that migrant labour is a Good Thing.
F3WMB
I agree that we are unlikely to see any new capabilities. As I have stated before, the savings lie in Infrastructure and Procurement this time around. Also, we need to stop this rationalisation process when it costs so much - moving trg to places like Worthy Down (£250M - BBC News - Worthy Down: Work begins on military training college) and Lyneham (£121M for the first stage - Work starts on new £121million Defence training college | netMAGmedia Ltd) for "hundreds of millions" at a time to sell the old sites for "tens of millions" (as an example former RAF Bicester and its hangars sold for just £3.25M - http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/104..._for___3_25m_/) is just plain daft. I read that there is a study for a 'single gateway' to the RAF by moving recruit training from Honington and Halton to Cranwell - if there is any 'delta' between the cost of doing this versus the receipts for the old real estate then surely this shouldn't happen in times of austerity? There will be no receipts for Honington (unless they pull the plug on the RAF Regt in SDSR and Halton is probably worth, as building land, about 1/4 of the build cost at Cranwell if the Worthy Down/Lyenham costs are anything to go by).
'Mend and make-do' is what most do when the coffers are running low!
LJ
I agree that we are unlikely to see any new capabilities. As I have stated before, the savings lie in Infrastructure and Procurement this time around. Also, we need to stop this rationalisation process when it costs so much - moving trg to places like Worthy Down (£250M - BBC News - Worthy Down: Work begins on military training college) and Lyneham (£121M for the first stage - Work starts on new £121million Defence training college | netMAGmedia Ltd) for "hundreds of millions" at a time to sell the old sites for "tens of millions" (as an example former RAF Bicester and its hangars sold for just £3.25M - http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/104..._for___3_25m_/) is just plain daft. I read that there is a study for a 'single gateway' to the RAF by moving recruit training from Honington and Halton to Cranwell - if there is any 'delta' between the cost of doing this versus the receipts for the old real estate then surely this shouldn't happen in times of austerity? There will be no receipts for Honington (unless they pull the plug on the RAF Regt in SDSR and Halton is probably worth, as building land, about 1/4 of the build cost at Cranwell if the Worthy Down/Lyenham costs are anything to go by).
'Mend and make-do' is what most do when the coffers are running low!
LJ
Waste, waste, waste Warships, jets and tanks worth £2.5 billion scrapped in Whitehall cost-cutting drive - Telegraph
LJ 
The Strategic Defence Review in 2010 outlined cuts of eight per cent, or £4.7 billion, from the Ministry of Defence budget. The savings were to be achieved by cutting around 42,000 jobs and getting rid of aircraft, ships and vehicles.
Selling the entire fleet of Britains 74 Harrier jump jets in 2011, seven years earlier than planned, was intended to save £2.8 billion...
...Ending the Harrier programme is recorded as a in the MoD accounts as a loss of £1.29 billion. The fleet was bought by the United States Navy, which still uses the planes, for around £100 million. US defence chiefs suggested they had secured a bargain given the good condition of the jets, saying the purchase was like buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it.
...Ending the Harrier programme is recorded as a in the MoD accounts as a loss of £1.29 billion. The fleet was bought by the United States Navy, which still uses the planes, for around £100 million. US defence chiefs suggested they had secured a bargain given the good condition of the jets, saying the purchase was like buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it.
Defence Ministers justified their decisions to cut the Army and sell-off prized assets like the Harrier jets by saying it would save money. In fact its saved nowhere near what they thought, and in some cases it has even resulted in a loss.
The Ministry of Defence stressed that the figures for scrapped equipment reflected a write-down in assets for accounting purposes, and not fresh cash payments.
A spokesman said: These are routine financial reports and in no way has day-to-day defence spending been impacted or reduced. Because of the financial inheritance in 2010, defence had to take tough decisions in order to deliver a balanced budget. This meant retiring a number of capabilities and writing off their costs, which requires specific accountancy treatment.
The Ministry of Defence stressed that the figures for scrapped equipment reflected a write-down in assets for accounting purposes, and not fresh cash payments.
A spokesman said: These are routine financial reports and in no way has day-to-day defence spending been impacted or reduced. Because of the financial inheritance in 2010, defence had to take tough decisions in order to deliver a balanced budget. This meant retiring a number of capabilities and writing off their costs, which requires specific accountancy treatment.
Waste, waste, waste
As noted by Finnpog in this thread http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...telegraph.html.
Someone at the Tellywelly (and possibly the NAO, which is worrying) is conflating "saving" with the "value" of asset write-offs.
Losing those assets (and the people that made them useful) was painful and ideally would never have happened, but when you've got no money, you've got no money. If as a nation we want to live beyond our means in terms of social spending, then everything else will suffer. Full stop, the end. Until that particular nettle is grasped, we're still going to hell in a handcart etc etc.
I read that there is a study for a 'single gateway' to the RAF by moving recruit training from Honington and Halton to Cranwell - if there is any 'delta' between the cost of doing this versus the receipts for the old real estate then surely this shouldn't happen
There is no way that they can sell off all of the Halton site for building and thus money, which may, or MAY NOT be retained inside the Defence budget. All of the MQs will still be required to feed the HQ at HW. The sports facilities might be sold, but who to and why? The House might be sold to a hotel chain (what a waste) but given the massive objections from the locals and the local councils to the redevelopment of the old Halton Hospital site I cannot see planning permission for lots of new houses (except, of course, the MoD will be being sold a line by the snake oil salesmen from the big house building firms) particularly as the infrastructure in that part of the Chilterns Area of Oustanding Natural Beauty is buggered! Anyone who lives locally will tell you that the roads in the rush hours are virtually gridlocked now let alone with thousands of new houses added!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A difficult one this. I think our armed forces have already fallen below "critical mass", with the RAF lacking the resource to maintain a broad spectrum of capabilities.
My first priority for SDSR15 would be PEOPLE, reversing the personnel cuts of SDSR10 across the RAF/RN as a minimum.
After that I'd focus on identifying the prime real estate we wish to keep (MOBs) and investing sensibly to ensure they are fit for purpose for the long term - so no more vanity projects just a rolling refresh based on a stable annual CAPEX spend for the 5yrs. Regrettably I'd probably dispose of Scampton immediately (REDS to Leeming or Linton).
Then I'd look at procurement guidelines and mandate currently available Off The Shelf solutions for all new purchases
Specifically I'd order up to 100 F-35As spread over a 5-10yr period and I'd order a handful more Typhoons (12-24) - admittedly in part to keep production running a little longer. As a part trade off I'd dispose of the Tranche 1 jets from 2018.
I'd go ahead with a new MPA, between 6-8 P-8s or refurb P-3s with up to date sensors/systems - this would be a cost based decision, so If P-3 is proven to be half the cost at 80% of the capability then I'd go for it.
For stuff currently in service I accept that Tornado should go around the end of this decade, assuming Typhoon/F35 are available and mature. I'd review Hawk T1 OSD and either extend via a RTW refurb programme or order a further 24 new 100 series to enter service from the end of the decade.
I'd review E-3D OSD and consider options to save money - from what must be a relatively expensive platform. Possibly retiring our own "fleet within a fleet" around the end of the decade and becoming a partner in the core NATO fleet
I'd call in ASCENT/MFTS for "review" - of course we need a high quality training system that maximises efficiencies but I'm not convinced this creeping civilianisation is the way forward
I'd remove a good handful of Chinooks from service (12-15), and look to rationalise basing of the RW fleet - look at all options including closing Odiham/Benson and centralising on Boscombe Down!
Should keep everyone busy for the next 5yrs or so
My first priority for SDSR15 would be PEOPLE, reversing the personnel cuts of SDSR10 across the RAF/RN as a minimum.
After that I'd focus on identifying the prime real estate we wish to keep (MOBs) and investing sensibly to ensure they are fit for purpose for the long term - so no more vanity projects just a rolling refresh based on a stable annual CAPEX spend for the 5yrs. Regrettably I'd probably dispose of Scampton immediately (REDS to Leeming or Linton).
Then I'd look at procurement guidelines and mandate currently available Off The Shelf solutions for all new purchases
Specifically I'd order up to 100 F-35As spread over a 5-10yr period and I'd order a handful more Typhoons (12-24) - admittedly in part to keep production running a little longer. As a part trade off I'd dispose of the Tranche 1 jets from 2018.
I'd go ahead with a new MPA, between 6-8 P-8s or refurb P-3s with up to date sensors/systems - this would be a cost based decision, so If P-3 is proven to be half the cost at 80% of the capability then I'd go for it.
For stuff currently in service I accept that Tornado should go around the end of this decade, assuming Typhoon/F35 are available and mature. I'd review Hawk T1 OSD and either extend via a RTW refurb programme or order a further 24 new 100 series to enter service from the end of the decade.
I'd review E-3D OSD and consider options to save money - from what must be a relatively expensive platform. Possibly retiring our own "fleet within a fleet" around the end of the decade and becoming a partner in the core NATO fleet
I'd call in ASCENT/MFTS for "review" - of course we need a high quality training system that maximises efficiencies but I'm not convinced this creeping civilianisation is the way forward
I'd remove a good handful of Chinooks from service (12-15), and look to rationalise basing of the RW fleet - look at all options including closing Odiham/Benson and centralising on Boscombe Down!
Should keep everyone busy for the next 5yrs or so
Roland
Someone needs to tell CAS that moving all phase 1 trg to RAF Cranwell does not make sense at present due to the financial situation:
1. A couple of years back Halton Hoise was valied at around £1.5M as it needs to have so much work done to bring it up to 5-star spa hotel standards. Also, the Recruit Trg Sqn (ex Apprentice Wg) buildings are Grade II listed and so they cannot be demolished. The rest of the site was valued at c£100M.
2. Aylesbury Vale and Chiltern District Council cannot supoort the development of the site for at least 10 years as they already have a massive building prgram underway and they have a further 2 planned - the hospital at Stoke Mandeville is over-run, the local schools are rammed (despite building a new Academy on the North side of Aylesbury) and as you quite correctly observe the roads are also jammed for the significant periods of the day.
3. HQ Air would still need access to the Married Quarters - RAF Halton has so few permanent staff (less than 500 and some of those are FTRS without entitlement).
4. RAF Cranwell is also short of Married Quarters due to the rest of Lincolnshire being similarly short - therefore, either expensive rentals would be needed or new build Married Quarters. There are also shortages in schools, hospital places and GPs in North Kesteven - this plan is unlikely to be in the local Council's 10 year plan as well.
5. The so-called 'synergies' with Initial Officer Trg and Basic Recruit Trg are unlikely to be found - you can't mix and match! So although you might be able to share some of the admin burden (maybe with a 10-20% reduction in total staff doing admin), the other parts of initial trg needs the same individuals. There is so very little fat to trim from something already as lean as it can get without breaking duty of care or health and safety legislation.
6. There would have to be a significant amount of infra built at Cranwell. Compared to the ~150 officers going through Cranwell each year there are ~2,000 recruits - at any one time there are ~5-600 recruits on site. There would need to be at least 4 new SLAM blocks to house the staff, there would need to be new barrack blocks for the students. There would need to be a new build of trg facilities and also a parade square (unless CHOM is to be shared? But there is a 'passing out' parade every 2 weeks that would severely disrupt CHOM's daily activity) as the Parade Square outside No 1 Mess is too small. I understand the cost of all of the build required is estimated to be between £400,000-500,000!
So I expect you heard "a spare £250M to do it" from CAS when you consider the recipts he would generate from the sell-off.
7. Then there is a the issue of the location. Most RAF Recruits do not have cars and so rely on public transport. At Halton, with Tring/Aylesbury/Wemdover stations and an ambundence of buses, it is very good; at Cranwell it is just awful. Also, 500 recruits descending on downtown Sleaford is going to be 'interesting'!
8. Where are the ~15 other lodger units going to go? Who is going to pay for their move? For example the Specialist Trg Sqn at RAF Halton delivers heallth and safety trg to over 5,000 joint service personnel each year. If you want to do that elsewhere then you need a facility AND a serious amount accomodation - if you have to build it, it doesn't come cheap!
Someone needs to be fully frank with CAS in that this vision is just bonkers in our current climate of deficit. It will not save money, we will lose other capabilities to achieve its funding and also it will be unpopular. This is classic VSO 'good ideas club' that is surrounded by the sychphantic murmerings of staff officers recently graduated from Shrivenham Polytechnic. If it happens we will set ourselves up for more headlines of "waste" and "over-spending" in the national newspapers.
As LJ says, "mend and make do" is the only option for the foreseeable future.
The B Word
Someone needs to tell CAS that moving all phase 1 trg to RAF Cranwell does not make sense at present due to the financial situation:
1. A couple of years back Halton Hoise was valied at around £1.5M as it needs to have so much work done to bring it up to 5-star spa hotel standards. Also, the Recruit Trg Sqn (ex Apprentice Wg) buildings are Grade II listed and so they cannot be demolished. The rest of the site was valued at c£100M.
2. Aylesbury Vale and Chiltern District Council cannot supoort the development of the site for at least 10 years as they already have a massive building prgram underway and they have a further 2 planned - the hospital at Stoke Mandeville is over-run, the local schools are rammed (despite building a new Academy on the North side of Aylesbury) and as you quite correctly observe the roads are also jammed for the significant periods of the day.
3. HQ Air would still need access to the Married Quarters - RAF Halton has so few permanent staff (less than 500 and some of those are FTRS without entitlement).
4. RAF Cranwell is also short of Married Quarters due to the rest of Lincolnshire being similarly short - therefore, either expensive rentals would be needed or new build Married Quarters. There are also shortages in schools, hospital places and GPs in North Kesteven - this plan is unlikely to be in the local Council's 10 year plan as well.
5. The so-called 'synergies' with Initial Officer Trg and Basic Recruit Trg are unlikely to be found - you can't mix and match! So although you might be able to share some of the admin burden (maybe with a 10-20% reduction in total staff doing admin), the other parts of initial trg needs the same individuals. There is so very little fat to trim from something already as lean as it can get without breaking duty of care or health and safety legislation.
6. There would have to be a significant amount of infra built at Cranwell. Compared to the ~150 officers going through Cranwell each year there are ~2,000 recruits - at any one time there are ~5-600 recruits on site. There would need to be at least 4 new SLAM blocks to house the staff, there would need to be new barrack blocks for the students. There would need to be a new build of trg facilities and also a parade square (unless CHOM is to be shared? But there is a 'passing out' parade every 2 weeks that would severely disrupt CHOM's daily activity) as the Parade Square outside No 1 Mess is too small. I understand the cost of all of the build required is estimated to be between £400,000-500,000!
So I expect you heard "a spare £250M to do it" from CAS when you consider the recipts he would generate from the sell-off. 7. Then there is a the issue of the location. Most RAF Recruits do not have cars and so rely on public transport. At Halton, with Tring/Aylesbury/Wemdover stations and an ambundence of buses, it is very good; at Cranwell it is just awful. Also, 500 recruits descending on downtown Sleaford is going to be 'interesting'!
8. Where are the ~15 other lodger units going to go? Who is going to pay for their move? For example the Specialist Trg Sqn at RAF Halton delivers heallth and safety trg to over 5,000 joint service personnel each year. If you want to do that elsewhere then you need a facility AND a serious amount accomodation - if you have to build it, it doesn't come cheap!
Someone needs to be fully frank with CAS in that this vision is just bonkers in our current climate of deficit. It will not save money, we will lose other capabilities to achieve its funding and also it will be unpopular. This is classic VSO 'good ideas club' that is surrounded by the sychphantic murmerings of staff officers recently graduated from Shrivenham Polytechnic. If it happens we will set ourselves up for more headlines of "waste" and "over-spending" in the national newspapers.
As LJ says, "mend and make do" is the only option for the foreseeable future.
The B Word
Andrewn
I think Linton is up for disposal, but Reds at Leeming with 100 Sqn would make a lot of sense in my opinion. They would need to find a new R313 equivalent nearby.
There would also need to be a new home for 1ACC at RAF Scampton as well, though (RAF Scampton - 1 Air Control Centre). This would also cost a lot of cash unless you just shut the runway at Scampton, and then how much would that save?
Maybe not as clear cut as it first appears.
The B Word
I think Linton is up for disposal, but Reds at Leeming with 100 Sqn would make a lot of sense in my opinion. They would need to find a new R313 equivalent nearby.
There would also need to be a new home for 1ACC at RAF Scampton as well, though (RAF Scampton - 1 Air Control Centre). This would also cost a lot of cash unless you just shut the runway at Scampton, and then how much would that save?
Maybe not as clear cut as it first appears.
The B Word
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"That's the way to build soldiers.. beast the gunners up and down those Lincolnshire hills."
I too thought that Bomber County was all flat fenland until I moved here in 2000. One of the steepest hills on the old A1 (Great North Road) is at Gonerby on the northern side of Grantham.
Post#51 is spot on "B Word". Having served at both CRN and Halton, I can concur with your observations. Halton House, in particular, is a real "white elephant" built on the orders of a confirmed pleasure-loving batchelor to be a fun palace (what's changed you may say?) and certainly not built to last, although the current owners have tried to keep it up together and its always good to "spot" it in Downton Abbey episodes etc.
Cranwell has very little accommodation for airmen recruits but when I left Trenchard Hall for the last time last month and took the chalice of redundancy, there seemed to be a lot of vacant space there - if you like a 1960s heat-losing pile designed by the late shady Mr Poulson that is!
I too thought that Bomber County was all flat fenland until I moved here in 2000. One of the steepest hills on the old A1 (Great North Road) is at Gonerby on the northern side of Grantham.
Post#51 is spot on "B Word". Having served at both CRN and Halton, I can concur with your observations. Halton House, in particular, is a real "white elephant" built on the orders of a confirmed pleasure-loving batchelor to be a fun palace (what's changed you may say?) and certainly not built to last, although the current owners have tried to keep it up together and its always good to "spot" it in Downton Abbey episodes etc.
Cranwell has very little accommodation for airmen recruits but when I left Trenchard Hall for the last time last month and took the chalice of redundancy, there seemed to be a lot of vacant space there - if you like a 1960s heat-losing pile designed by the late shady Mr Poulson that is!
Last edited by Toddington Ted; 3rd Jan 2015 at 14:53. Reason: Original quote omitted.
Toddington
As I understand it Trenchard Hall is condemed from use by new users - too much asbestos and its falling to bits! Therefore, no use for new people and let's face it they would be mobing from bad to worse!
iRaven
As I understand it Trenchard Hall is condemed from use by new users - too much asbestos and its falling to bits! Therefore, no use for new people and let's face it they would be mobing from bad to worse!
iRaven
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks B Word, well aware of the potential disposal of Linton, which was partly why I thought it may make a good home for the Reds, agree that airspace is an issue wherever a new location is.
Regards the FC stuff then pretty sure there were plans a few years back to vacate anyway and consolidate into either Boulmer or Coningsby?
None of these decisions are simple and all come with some cost and disruption, I guess the wider point i'm making is related to making best use of the available infrastructure and keeping dilapidated places like Scampton going just seems a poor use of taxpayers money.
Regards the FC stuff then pretty sure there were plans a few years back to vacate anyway and consolidate into either Boulmer or Coningsby?
None of these decisions are simple and all come with some cost and disruption, I guess the wider point i'm making is related to making best use of the available infrastructure and keeping dilapidated places like Scampton going just seems a poor use of taxpayers money.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrewn,
I was intending not to get into any debate on the detail of any future SDSR, but I will certainly agree with you that although DE&S/EP and DIO/Infra may be the panacea for what appears to be inevitable deep cuts, it is as you rightly point out the PEOPLE that require the greatest strategic review and rapid tactical implementation over the next 5 years.
If not you can have all the equipment in the world, but as both history and doctrine records that equipment alone does not make a war fighting force.
How an SDSR does put people as it's number two priority, second to saving money, is a question too great for this small brain.
Back into my comfort zone of RW, I would like to explore your rationale behind your comments below:
I'd call in ASCENT/MFTS for "review" - of course we need a high quality training system that maximises efficiencies but I'm not convinced this creeping civilianisation is the way forward
I'd remove a good handful of Chinooks from service (12-15), and look to rationalise basing of the RW fleet - look at all options including closing Odiham/Benson and centralising on Boscombe Down!
Agreed about MFTS, with as seen on previous threads all of the money already spent on the FJ system, and the DHFS contract being extended to compensate for the current MFTS RW programme delays.
So what is your strategic MFTS solution, that will either appeal (I.e. Gain agreement) to our Service chiefs, politicians, or financially - sadly as already established anything that has adding value or operational capability as its main tenet will not make first screening I fear.
As to your suggestion of removing a handful of wokkas, without appearing partisan.....why? Will our requirement for future tactical lift and air mobility reduce in the coming 5 years, or are we expecting our newly recruited Reservists to walk?
As to rationalisation, brilliant idea and there are 2 factors where I personally believe this has failed in previous studies (BELVEDERE and others), namely single Service protectionism (all those potential career pathways stopped in an instant) and the real costs of actually building new stuff (is there anywhere out there where 3 of our bases can merge and all our RW just walk on in cost neutral basis or with savings (and do not forget it is not purely aircraft space, but sims, MQs, accommodation, office space - even if economy of scale was achieved with Medical, MT, etc).
I look forward to your thoughts.
I was intending not to get into any debate on the detail of any future SDSR, but I will certainly agree with you that although DE&S/EP and DIO/Infra may be the panacea for what appears to be inevitable deep cuts, it is as you rightly point out the PEOPLE that require the greatest strategic review and rapid tactical implementation over the next 5 years.
If not you can have all the equipment in the world, but as both history and doctrine records that equipment alone does not make a war fighting force.
How an SDSR does put people as it's number two priority, second to saving money, is a question too great for this small brain.
Back into my comfort zone of RW, I would like to explore your rationale behind your comments below:
I'd call in ASCENT/MFTS for "review" - of course we need a high quality training system that maximises efficiencies but I'm not convinced this creeping civilianisation is the way forward
I'd remove a good handful of Chinooks from service (12-15), and look to rationalise basing of the RW fleet - look at all options including closing Odiham/Benson and centralising on Boscombe Down!
Agreed about MFTS, with as seen on previous threads all of the money already spent on the FJ system, and the DHFS contract being extended to compensate for the current MFTS RW programme delays.
So what is your strategic MFTS solution, that will either appeal (I.e. Gain agreement) to our Service chiefs, politicians, or financially - sadly as already established anything that has adding value or operational capability as its main tenet will not make first screening I fear.
As to your suggestion of removing a handful of wokkas, without appearing partisan.....why? Will our requirement for future tactical lift and air mobility reduce in the coming 5 years, or are we expecting our newly recruited Reservists to walk?
As to rationalisation, brilliant idea and there are 2 factors where I personally believe this has failed in previous studies (BELVEDERE and others), namely single Service protectionism (all those potential career pathways stopped in an instant) and the real costs of actually building new stuff (is there anywhere out there where 3 of our bases can merge and all our RW just walk on in cost neutral basis or with savings (and do not forget it is not purely aircraft space, but sims, MQs, accommodation, office space - even if economy of scale was achieved with Medical, MT, etc).
I look forward to your thoughts.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 3rd Jan 2015 at 17:38.
Egdg,
MUSIC TO MY EARS! I watched the flying order book go from a concise, useable document to an unwieldy, contradictory, whimsical piece of nonsense. My target for SDSR would be regulations. Once the MOD had a set of coherent, intellectually rigorous rules, appropriately applied at local or fleet level, it could dispense with layers of senior officer bureaucracy.....and probably provide a more effective service to the taxpayers that fund it.
MUSIC TO MY EARS! I watched the flying order book go from a concise, useable document to an unwieldy, contradictory, whimsical piece of nonsense. My target for SDSR would be regulations. Once the MOD had a set of coherent, intellectually rigorous rules, appropriately applied at local or fleet level, it could dispense with layers of senior officer bureaucracy.....and probably provide a more effective service to the taxpayers that fund it.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM4 - glad you like some of my ideas!
As for MFTS I suspect the whole concept is something that was dreamt up by Consultants, on the premise that it would save £Xm by Y date, based on a set of assumptions that were (a) probably incomplete or flawed and (b) are now no longer relevant. Of course, anything that allows a recap of the training fleet (RW/FW) is a good thing but if that comes at the expense of both capacity for surge and quality of output then it's a bad thing. Fundamentally MFTS feels like one of those vanity projects that needs stopping and a more incremental approach be taken. Is DHFS broken or prohibitively expensive? Are the AS355 and AB412 really knackered or unfit for purpose? If not I'd be tempted to leave both well alone for now. For FW then I see some merit on consolidation at Valley/Mona - I've seen Valley operate at a considerably higher tempo than it does now and it coped just fine; I'm sure Mona could handle much of the BFT circuits and bumps traffic leaving Valley to handle the AFT. My main concern with MFTS is the further erosion of Service input; on a spreadsheet to an accountant it makes sense but how do you surge (to support Ops or increased trg throughput) with such a thin veneer of light blue? What happens when the pipe of (cheap) ex-mil staff dries up? It just seems very short-sighted to my simple mind. Not sure if that's exactly a "strategic" answer but its the best I can come up with right now!
Regards the Wokkas then, to me, the recent purchase of 14 (?) HC6 was a classic example of reacting after the horse had bolted - the additional frames were needed then not now! We seem dead set on avoiding boots on ground at all costs for the medium term so unless we revert to a Cold War type posture then I'd look to re-balance a little, stick the oldest ones in Shawbury and consolidate remainder. Where to? How is that achieved in a "cost neutral" manner that stops mass outflow of personnel? I don't even pretend to be in any position to comment authoritatively but let me have a go anyway! For a start we know that AAC/RN Wildcat will consolidate into Yeovilton so what's left for Wallop? Not a lot that couldn't be moved to Wattisham I'd suggest so why not make use of Wallop and/or Boscombe and vacate both Odiham and Benson? Geographically it isn't much of a shift and keeps the RW fleet close to the Plain, etc. As to the financial implications then that largely depends on the amount of investment required, but there's a lot of real estate at Boscombe that is seriously under utlilised and Wallop seems ideal as it is for Helo ops.
There you go - shoot me down!
As for MFTS I suspect the whole concept is something that was dreamt up by Consultants, on the premise that it would save £Xm by Y date, based on a set of assumptions that were (a) probably incomplete or flawed and (b) are now no longer relevant. Of course, anything that allows a recap of the training fleet (RW/FW) is a good thing but if that comes at the expense of both capacity for surge and quality of output then it's a bad thing. Fundamentally MFTS feels like one of those vanity projects that needs stopping and a more incremental approach be taken. Is DHFS broken or prohibitively expensive? Are the AS355 and AB412 really knackered or unfit for purpose? If not I'd be tempted to leave both well alone for now. For FW then I see some merit on consolidation at Valley/Mona - I've seen Valley operate at a considerably higher tempo than it does now and it coped just fine; I'm sure Mona could handle much of the BFT circuits and bumps traffic leaving Valley to handle the AFT. My main concern with MFTS is the further erosion of Service input; on a spreadsheet to an accountant it makes sense but how do you surge (to support Ops or increased trg throughput) with such a thin veneer of light blue? What happens when the pipe of (cheap) ex-mil staff dries up? It just seems very short-sighted to my simple mind. Not sure if that's exactly a "strategic" answer but its the best I can come up with right now!
Regards the Wokkas then, to me, the recent purchase of 14 (?) HC6 was a classic example of reacting after the horse had bolted - the additional frames were needed then not now! We seem dead set on avoiding boots on ground at all costs for the medium term so unless we revert to a Cold War type posture then I'd look to re-balance a little, stick the oldest ones in Shawbury and consolidate remainder. Where to? How is that achieved in a "cost neutral" manner that stops mass outflow of personnel? I don't even pretend to be in any position to comment authoritatively but let me have a go anyway! For a start we know that AAC/RN Wildcat will consolidate into Yeovilton so what's left for Wallop? Not a lot that couldn't be moved to Wattisham I'd suggest so why not make use of Wallop and/or Boscombe and vacate both Odiham and Benson? Geographically it isn't much of a shift and keeps the RW fleet close to the Plain, etc. As to the financial implications then that largely depends on the amount of investment required, but there's a lot of real estate at Boscombe that is seriously under utlilised and Wallop seems ideal as it is for Helo ops.
There you go - shoot me down!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrewn,
Regarding is DHFS broke, not fit for purpose, or prohibitively expensive I am sure that was clearly articulated in the requirement and supporting staff work that initiated MFTS
I personally believe that you are extremely brave in suggesting that boots on ground and/or the requirement for tactical battlefield lift will not require the levels of CH47s that we currently have, even as a contingency/capability that rarely gets used the ability to rapidly deploy/operate in Eastern Europe through to large scale NEOs/Disaster Reliefs I would suggest it is one of those multi-spectrum capabilities that are worth the insurance premiums. Apologies if I sound defensive or protective of my own kin, I am not.
As to Middle Wallop as our 'super base', I am sure the AAC (and even our airships) will have all their ducks in a row and suitable accounting spreadsheets as to why not. The only factor that might change for this SDSR is that the AAC is ultimately Army, and Army winces at the budget costs of JHC and things RW especially as now the intrinsic Afghan and Iraq requirement for RW has been lost in corporate memory already. Army may just tell AAC to ship out to Wattisham, which may result in your idea of using under utilised real estate and facilities at Middle Wallop and Boscombe being realised. All to enable the sale of what I believe (due to proximity of London) of the more lucrative Benson and Odiham.
But is all this change really going to save money or be cost neutral though and (admittedly a secondary consideration in the current environment) will it reduce operational capability
Regarding is DHFS broke, not fit for purpose, or prohibitively expensive I am sure that was clearly articulated in the requirement and supporting staff work that initiated MFTS
I personally believe that you are extremely brave in suggesting that boots on ground and/or the requirement for tactical battlefield lift will not require the levels of CH47s that we currently have, even as a contingency/capability that rarely gets used the ability to rapidly deploy/operate in Eastern Europe through to large scale NEOs/Disaster Reliefs I would suggest it is one of those multi-spectrum capabilities that are worth the insurance premiums. Apologies if I sound defensive or protective of my own kin, I am not.
As to Middle Wallop as our 'super base', I am sure the AAC (and even our airships) will have all their ducks in a row and suitable accounting spreadsheets as to why not. The only factor that might change for this SDSR is that the AAC is ultimately Army, and Army winces at the budget costs of JHC and things RW especially as now the intrinsic Afghan and Iraq requirement for RW has been lost in corporate memory already. Army may just tell AAC to ship out to Wattisham, which may result in your idea of using under utilised real estate and facilities at Middle Wallop and Boscombe being realised. All to enable the sale of what I believe (due to proximity of London) of the more lucrative Benson and Odiham.
But is all this change really going to save money or be cost neutral though and (admittedly a secondary consideration in the current environment) will it reduce operational capability
