UK Defence in Numbers 'booklet'
Bit confused by the Defence budget figures as well. P.1 says £34.4 billion but the penultimate page claims circa £50 billion, which is it? (Rhetorical question, I know it's not £50B) 
CM #20
Maybe, heaven forbid, some politicians will be prepared to make a public case for a well-equipped military whose primary function is to deter adversaries and be ready to fight for the genuine national interest, rather than insisting that it be fully stretched on strategic irrelevancies in the name of "sweating the taxpayer's pound" and shedding capability for its core purpose in the process. And maybe the service chiefs will stop pressing to deploy their forces at every opportunity in misguided attempts to demonstrate relevance, ceding instead to the operational chain of command, of which they are no longer part. We can live in hope!
Maybe, heaven forbid, some politicians will be prepared to make a public case for a well-equipped military whose primary function is to deter adversaries and be ready to fight for the genuine national interest, rather than insisting that it be fully stretched on strategic irrelevancies in the name of "sweating the taxpayer's pound" and shedding capability for its core purpose in the process. And maybe the service chiefs will stop pressing to deploy their forces at every opportunity in misguided attempts to demonstrate relevance, ceding instead to the operational chain of command, of which they are no longer part. We can live in hope!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Maybe, heaven forbid, some politicians will be prepared to make a public case for a well-equipped military"
Don't hold your breath - I've been trying to remember who last did make such a case and mean it - Churchill probably
Don't hold your breath - I've been trying to remember who last did make such a case and mean it - Churchill probably
So we spend roughly the same as the Russians...h'mm ...6 combat squadrons, 19 frigates and destroyers..200 tanks..of which 50 odd are front line serviceable in one regiment?..vrs....??? ...bit embarrassing really.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sea King Mk 4 Unarmed Transport Helicopter? Apart from the GPMG and M3M that can be fitted. There's a lot more than 17 Merlin, where did they get the info from??
To be fair, at least there are some statistics available. I work in a country where everything and anything to do with the Forces and the Interior Ministry troops is a state secret. I was given when I arrived a glossy book about the heroic and glorious forces of this country; pages are blank, detail blacked out...and this country is regarded as an Ally...
Longwings
I've been saying this for years. We spend nearly 2/3rds of our budget on infrastructure and equipment - both of which we are NOT getting value for money from.
At a local level on a station/base if we were allowed to get local contractors in then we could save at least 50% rather than going through DIO and their single-source regional prime contractor. Furthermore, whilst the R&D costs are 2,9% of the budget for equipment, this is an out-and-out lie; the reason why our defence equipment is so expensive is because we don't buy much off of the shelf and end up paying for the R&D costs in the procurment costs - that's why Typhoon, Astute, Watchkeeper, L85 rifles, A400M, Voyager, Type 45, etc... all cost well over the odds for what we pay for them. Whereas Reaper, Rivet Joint, etc... which were bought off of the shelf come in on, or under, budget and on, or under, agreed delivery dates, offer far better value to the defence budget. That is why we have 6 combat squadrons - dumb ass procurement with industry fat cats lining their pockets.
IMHO of course...
LJ
we spend roughly the same as the Russians...h'mm ...6 combat squadrons, 19 frigates and destroyers..200 tanks..of which 50 odd are front line serviceable in one regiment?..vrs....??? ...bit embarrassing really.
At a local level on a station/base if we were allowed to get local contractors in then we could save at least 50% rather than going through DIO and their single-source regional prime contractor. Furthermore, whilst the R&D costs are 2,9% of the budget for equipment, this is an out-and-out lie; the reason why our defence equipment is so expensive is because we don't buy much off of the shelf and end up paying for the R&D costs in the procurment costs - that's why Typhoon, Astute, Watchkeeper, L85 rifles, A400M, Voyager, Type 45, etc... all cost well over the odds for what we pay for them. Whereas Reaper, Rivet Joint, etc... which were bought off of the shelf come in on, or under, budget and on, or under, agreed delivery dates, offer far better value to the defence budget. That is why we have 6 combat squadrons - dumb ass procurement with industry fat cats lining their pockets.
IMHO of course...
LJ
longwings,
You clearly have trouble counting...
You clearly have trouble counting...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't knock this document, accept it as factually correct, so that the current SDSR can get rid of the JP's etc. and show that a saving has been made!
I think it's called creative accounting.
I think it's called creative accounting.
Seems Pruners aren't the only ones to have difficulty with this latest bit of spin
MoD under fire for listing retired jets and grounded helicopters in new list of military assets - Telegraph
MoD under fire for listing retired jets and grounded helicopters in new list of military assets - Telegraph
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looks like the Telegraph have a Prune account.............
makes life easy for the hard working journo's - find a story on here and then call up a rent-a-quote in their address book and voila! An article!!
the Times is as bad - they seem to plunder the "Economist"
makes life easy for the hard working journo's - find a story on here and then call up a rent-a-quote in their address book and voila! An article!!
the Times is as bad - they seem to plunder the "Economist"
