SDSR rumours.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teetering
Not sure that SDSR and Air Cadet Gliding futures are necessarily linked per se.............. but
I'd say if it's a winch based operation:
Future Air Cadet gliding could be available at:
RAF Cosford - not really great with an AEF there
RAF Halton - suited
Hullavington Airfield, Buckley Barracks - suited
Kinloss Airfield, Kinloss Barracks - suited
RAF Odiham - not really suited
RNAS Predannack or RMB Chivenor (TBD) - Both !!
RAF Syerston (HQ 2FTS)suited (obviously)
RAF Tern Hill - not really suited
Upavon Airfield, Trenchard Lines - suited
RAF Woodvale - not really suitable with an AEF there
and what about the South East of England ? - bin Kenley and there is no presence there at all.
I do agree that although the cost savings of closing a VGS are small, there are substantial savings from closing the associated infrastructure and land holdings of an airfield.
I would however point out that rarely does airfield type land attached to the Army estate (barracks sites) get released or disposed of as often they see it as a 'training area on their doorstep' - so on that basis there might be a cost reduction to one user but another picks it up and overall no real saving to MoD (although some installations may be demolished/decommed............
I can't see the Army giving up Abingdon Airfield, Ternhill Airfield, Hullavington Airfield, Upavon Airfield, Cottesmore Airfield, Kinloss Airfield, Leuchars Airfield, RM Condor Airfield, Merryfield Airfield etc without a fight for the very reasons I've cited..............
But you make valid basing assumptions for some future sites and also for cost savings.
Arc
Not sure that SDSR and Air Cadet Gliding futures are necessarily linked per se.............. but
I'd say if it's a winch based operation:
Future Air Cadet gliding could be available at:
RAF Cosford - not really great with an AEF there
RAF Halton - suited
Hullavington Airfield, Buckley Barracks - suited
Kinloss Airfield, Kinloss Barracks - suited
RAF Odiham - not really suited
RNAS Predannack or RMB Chivenor (TBD) - Both !!
RAF Syerston (HQ 2FTS)suited (obviously)
RAF Tern Hill - not really suited
Upavon Airfield, Trenchard Lines - suited
RAF Woodvale - not really suitable with an AEF there
and what about the South East of England ? - bin Kenley and there is no presence there at all.
I do agree that although the cost savings of closing a VGS are small, there are substantial savings from closing the associated infrastructure and land holdings of an airfield.
I would however point out that rarely does airfield type land attached to the Army estate (barracks sites) get released or disposed of as often they see it as a 'training area on their doorstep' - so on that basis there might be a cost reduction to one user but another picks it up and overall no real saving to MoD (although some installations may be demolished/decommed............
I can't see the Army giving up Abingdon Airfield, Ternhill Airfield, Hullavington Airfield, Upavon Airfield, Cottesmore Airfield, Kinloss Airfield, Leuchars Airfield, RM Condor Airfield, Merryfield Airfield etc without a fight for the very reasons I've cited..............
But you make valid basing assumptions for some future sites and also for cost savings.
Arc
Gentleman Aviator
On a small point if information Arc, Ternhill Airfield has not gone to the Army; it remains "RAF Ternhill" and is of course used by DHFS Monday-Friday.
You do make valid points.
I agree that Air Cadet gliding won't be part of SDSR per se, but there is some linkage with possible savings to be made as you suggest.
And I guess 2 FTS have had the time to think about it ...........
You do make valid points.
I agree that Air Cadet gliding won't be part of SDSR per se, but there is some linkage with possible savings to be made as you suggest.
And I guess 2 FTS have had the time to think about it ...........
Good grief, this thread makes immensely depressing reading from out here in civilian world.
30 squadrons to six? If you wish to imagine me waving a "what happened to all the money" banner, you may.
P
30 squadrons to six? If you wish to imagine me waving a "what happened to all the money" banner, you may.
P
Well you've only got to wait until 23 Nov to find out the outcome
Strategic Defence and Security Review: Treasury names the date | Civil Service World
Interestingly, the SDSR is being announced 2 days before the CSR on 25 Nov. So given the above article states the defence budget is going up in real terms over the course of the Parliament along with a different announcement date mean that we finally have a review based on strategy rather than finance???
Ooooh look, a flying pig.
Worryingly, the article notes significant increases to Intelligence Agency manning. Even though they are funded outside of Defence and are responsible to different departments of state. On that basis, I'm thinking 2% NATO spending will now include an element of the Agencies' funding, that if the equipment programme is now going to be funded and there are no further cuts in Regular manpower, that can only mean one of 2 things: The Reserves plan falls short and the thrashings continue as gaps go unfilled. Or the Reserves are funded and we have to find the cash from the non-equipment budget.
Now if you all wouldn't mind bending over and touching your toes .... that's it, now you might feel a slight sting as the bat goes in and the money comes out ....
I'm convinced the only reason for the Treasury to accept a 30% cut is so it can use it as a stick to beat all the other departments with. What really worries me though is, like any bully lashing out, or terrorist, the more they feel backed into a corner the more extreme they are going to become. And at this rate Osborne will be so toxic by 2020 it's Corbyn's to lose!
Strategic Defence and Security Review: Treasury names the date | Civil Service World
Interestingly, the SDSR is being announced 2 days before the CSR on 25 Nov. So given the above article states the defence budget is going up in real terms over the course of the Parliament along with a different announcement date mean that we finally have a review based on strategy rather than finance???
Ooooh look, a flying pig.
Worryingly, the article notes significant increases to Intelligence Agency manning. Even though they are funded outside of Defence and are responsible to different departments of state. On that basis, I'm thinking 2% NATO spending will now include an element of the Agencies' funding, that if the equipment programme is now going to be funded and there are no further cuts in Regular manpower, that can only mean one of 2 things: The Reserves plan falls short and the thrashings continue as gaps go unfilled. Or the Reserves are funded and we have to find the cash from the non-equipment budget.
Now if you all wouldn't mind bending over and touching your toes .... that's it, now you might feel a slight sting as the bat goes in and the money comes out ....
I'm convinced the only reason for the Treasury to accept a 30% cut is so it can use it as a stick to beat all the other departments with. What really worries me though is, like any bully lashing out, or terrorist, the more they feel backed into a corner the more extreme they are going to become. And at this rate Osborne will be so toxic by 2020 it's Corbyn's to lose!
With HMRC having taken a beating for its poor tax-collecting performance in recent years, could I be forgiven for wondering how cuts to the Treasury can do anything but make it even worse?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett01
Hmmm,
The whole thing that 'naffs me off' about Government is that actually they always look at cuts rather than economic growth so that Tax revenues increase and we can actually spend more on improving longer term plans and facilities/services (not just defence).
Why ? - because cuts is easy - economic growth is hard. And also most of the politicians have never had a job of any substance so just don't 'get' 'economies' or 'business', mind you they have never been 'in the the military' either so they don't get defence, mind you they have never been in the NHS so they don't get medical do they................, Uh Oh - I'm seeing a trend here...............
I really hope SDSR maintains the status quo plus a P8 MPA package (at least 12 aircraft) as a minimum. But then, I'm often disappointed..............
Arc
Hmmm,
The whole thing that 'naffs me off' about Government is that actually they always look at cuts rather than economic growth so that Tax revenues increase and we can actually spend more on improving longer term plans and facilities/services (not just defence).
Why ? - because cuts is easy - economic growth is hard. And also most of the politicians have never had a job of any substance so just don't 'get' 'economies' or 'business', mind you they have never been 'in the the military' either so they don't get defence, mind you they have never been in the NHS so they don't get medical do they................, Uh Oh - I'm seeing a trend here...............
I really hope SDSR maintains the status quo plus a P8 MPA package (at least 12 aircraft) as a minimum. But then, I'm often disappointed..............
Arc
Archie,
The government doesn't create economic growth per se, it ensures that the conditions are right for companies and individuals to do that. Spending money to create growth only works in very limited circumstances, for example where a lack of confidence prevents individuals or companies investing. Eventually the money that has been spent has to repaid.....and that's where we are at the moment. Even when the government manages to balance the books we'll still be paying over £60bn a year in interest on our national debt (£1000 a year for every person in the UK). That's a burden that falls on company profits as well as as every individual tax payer and money that can't be spent/invested to create growth.
For too long politians have been bribing us with our own money and this is why we're in the mess we're in now. Nicola Sturgeon still has this mentality and is determined to get her children and grandchildren to pay her bills!
The government doesn't create economic growth per se, it ensures that the conditions are right for companies and individuals to do that. Spending money to create growth only works in very limited circumstances, for example where a lack of confidence prevents individuals or companies investing. Eventually the money that has been spent has to repaid.....and that's where we are at the moment. Even when the government manages to balance the books we'll still be paying over £60bn a year in interest on our national debt (£1000 a year for every person in the UK). That's a burden that falls on company profits as well as as every individual tax payer and money that can't be spent/invested to create growth.
For too long politians have been bribing us with our own money and this is why we're in the mess we're in now. Nicola Sturgeon still has this mentality and is determined to get her children and grandchildren to pay her bills!
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Belfast
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just putting this one out there as I have heard it from a source within Tiny Tiny Airways (AAC) D4K to be handed to RAF and based with the other ISAR assets. That would then mean a full Regt to be disbanded or re-roled.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re role to what? And with whom? They've NEVER been able to fully man that role since AH came into being. Not allowing aircrew the option of moving to another type has finally come and bit them in the ass. Wonder if the Frenchies could help....hmmmmmm.
Latest rumour on the pay increments - increments to be replaced by a single representative pay band for each rank, set at something like the current level 4.
If correct, then I guess it's a nice pay rise on promotion, especially if you don't hang around but after a few years you'd quickly start to fall behind, especially with the now customary sub-inflationary annual uplift. Equally, with the new annual pension limits, I can see a high flyer getting promoted early and therefore getting quite a jump if a mid-level pay band is implemented ending up with a nice pensions tax bill for their trouble if they exceed the annual allowance. Talk about carrot and stick!
Not sure how accurate, but this is a rumour site and apparently briefed to a chum in the RE yesterday. But it all sounds very painful and hardly retention positive.
If correct, then I guess it's a nice pay rise on promotion, especially if you don't hang around but after a few years you'd quickly start to fall behind, especially with the now customary sub-inflationary annual uplift. Equally, with the new annual pension limits, I can see a high flyer getting promoted early and therefore getting quite a jump if a mid-level pay band is implemented ending up with a nice pensions tax bill for their trouble if they exceed the annual allowance. Talk about carrot and stick!
Not sure how accurate, but this is a rumour site and apparently briefed to a chum in the RE yesterday. But it all sounds very painful and hardly retention positive.
Never used to get an annual pay increment like we do today. Ironic that people are talking of PVRing over the removal of something that people PVRed over when it was introduced!
Downsizer,
Are you talking about junior ranks or officers in the 1960s? I joined in the 90s and the officer pay spine certainly had annual increments then until gp capt I think when they became biennial. I believe the ranks were on bands but received a separate allowance for time served. A look in one of the old AFPRB reports would confirm.
Edited to add - they shouldn't be surprised if people do PVR over pay if this goes ahead. By reducing everything to financial terms and the main effort being to cut costs and save money above all else, they have monetised a way of life and turned it into a job dominated by numbers. Don't be surprised if people decide the numbers don't finally stack up.
Are you talking about junior ranks or officers in the 1960s? I joined in the 90s and the officer pay spine certainly had annual increments then until gp capt I think when they became biennial. I believe the ranks were on bands but received a separate allowance for time served. A look in one of the old AFPRB reports would confirm.
Edited to add - they shouldn't be surprised if people do PVR over pay if this goes ahead. By reducing everything to financial terms and the main effort being to cut costs and save money above all else, they have monetised a way of life and turned it into a job dominated by numbers. Don't be surprised if people decide the numbers don't finally stack up.
Pay 2000 (which finally came in circa 2002) introduced annual incremental pay rises. Prior to that point we all got large pay rises on promotion. Or at least the non-commisioned cadre did, might have been different for Rodneys....?
There also used to be a time served "increment" at about 12 and 15 years IIRC.
There also used to be a time served "increment" at about 12 and 15 years IIRC.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly not an exhaustive search, but the '93 report (as early as I could easily find) has annual increments (for us Rodneys) (P20). Baldricks got triennial daily rate increments(?) (P21)
Twenty-Second Report 1993
It also includes figures from '92 report (P22 & 23)
Wingcos & GCs got biennial inc. rises, Air Commodes no increments.
Twenty-Second Report 1993
It also includes figures from '92 report (P22 & 23)
Wingcos & GCs got biennial inc. rises, Air Commodes no increments.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 11th Nov 2015 at 20:01.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Yeovil
Age: 53
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, prior to Pay 2000 we were on one single rate (albeit non sea-going WRNS were on a different scale). However we did get Long Service Pay on top of that. It would be interesting to see if that gets brought back too.