UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...dget-overspend
British military could be left depleted after £13bn shortfall
British military could be left depleted after £13bn shortfall
A lot of the current budgetary issues have been caused by sharp accounting by Treasury (RAB anyone?!) and the inclusion of items that MoD have little control of. Trident for example.
Realistically, should we be looking to a more economic deterrent?
One that doesn't rely on submarines that and costs £46Bn....
Do we need to penetrate Moscow's ABM defences?
How much to purchase ASMP and put a UK warhead on it?
One that doesn't rely on submarines that and costs £46Bn....
Do we need to penetrate Moscow's ABM defences?
How much to purchase ASMP and put a UK warhead on it?
Thread Starter
If you ask BAe £ 46Bn........................
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-equ...-2019-to-2029/
Released yesterday.....
Released yesterday.....
Report conclusions
For the third successive year, the Equipment Plan remains unaffordable. The Department’s central estimate of equipment procurement and support costs is lower than last year, but this reflects a restatement of the affordability gap rather than actions to address the funding shortfalls. The Department has still not taken the necessary decisions to establish an affordable long-term investment programme to develop future military capabilities. It has responded to immediate funding pressures by strengthening its management of annual budgets and establishing controls on future expenditure on equipment and support projects. It is also seeking to develop a more realistic assessment of affordability but has not yet addressed inconsistencies in the cost forecasts which support it.
However, the Department has become locked into a cycle of managing its annual budgets to address urgent affordability pressures at the expense of longer-term strategic planning, and is introducing new commitments without fully understanding the impact on the affordability of the Plan. It is not, therefore, using the Equipment Plan as a long‑term financial management tool, as it was originally designed to be. The Department’s continued short-term decision-making is now leading to higher costs and reduced capabilities. There is evidence that these problems are growing and increasingly affecting the Armed Forces’ ability to maintain and enhance their capabilities. As a result, there are increasing risks to value for money from the Department’s management of the Equipment Plan.
For the third successive year, the Equipment Plan remains unaffordable. The Department’s central estimate of equipment procurement and support costs is lower than last year, but this reflects a restatement of the affordability gap rather than actions to address the funding shortfalls. The Department has still not taken the necessary decisions to establish an affordable long-term investment programme to develop future military capabilities. It has responded to immediate funding pressures by strengthening its management of annual budgets and establishing controls on future expenditure on equipment and support projects. It is also seeking to develop a more realistic assessment of affordability but has not yet addressed inconsistencies in the cost forecasts which support it.
However, the Department has become locked into a cycle of managing its annual budgets to address urgent affordability pressures at the expense of longer-term strategic planning, and is introducing new commitments without fully understanding the impact on the affordability of the Plan. It is not, therefore, using the Equipment Plan as a long‑term financial management tool, as it was originally designed to be. The Department’s continued short-term decision-making is now leading to higher costs and reduced capabilities. There is evidence that these problems are growing and increasingly affecting the Armed Forces’ ability to maintain and enhance their capabilities. As a result, there are increasing risks to value for money from the Department’s management of the Equipment Plan.
The Department’s affordability assessment is also based on the assumption that Air Command and Joint Forces Command will find efficiencies equivalent to all known potential efficiencies, and then find a further £1.3 billion of efficiencies.10 Neither these TLBs nor Head Office could provide sufficient evidence to justify this confidence in their ability to reduce costs.
Last edited by Jumping_Jack; 28th Feb 2020 at 14:27.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smacks that either the Military Tasks and Defence Planning Assumptions need reducing (political, not a military call) from its established requirement, or the budget needs increasing.
Throwing mud at MoD and the Armed Forces for expecting 5 course Michelle Roux with a decent appertif whilst paying for a McDonalds value meal isnt exactly realistic.
Either way, the army are F*cked. No one will commit to a large scale military deployment as per HERRICK/TELIC, there is no political will. That means Land will be sucking from the rearmost nipple for the forseeable.
Thread Starter
"expecting 5 course Michelle Roux with a decent appertif whilst paying for a McDonalds value meal isnt exactly realistic"
Expecting politicians to be realistic is REAL fantasy. Especially the Tories who are weaned on Imperial valour, Winston , Maggie, the Great Duke etc etc. However as you say as long as they don't do something stupid like cut (rather than gut) a series of famous fighting units (SAS, Marines, Paras, Guards....) they can trim quite a bit. The RTR just don't have the public resonance that will get the public annoyed or worried
Expecting politicians to be realistic is REAL fantasy. Especially the Tories who are weaned on Imperial valour, Winston , Maggie, the Great Duke etc etc. However as you say as long as they don't do something stupid like cut (rather than gut) a series of famous fighting units (SAS, Marines, Paras, Guards....) they can trim quite a bit. The RTR just don't have the public resonance that will get the public annoyed or worried
Thread Starter
Apparently someone has had the bright idea that with "Argos" reaching the end of her life in 2024 a new "hospital" ship can be funded by raiding the International Development budget.
Sounds like Mr Cummings really is getting to shake-up thinking in the dusty ,corridors of power......
Sounds like Mr Cummings really is getting to shake-up thinking in the dusty ,corridors of power......
Apparently someone has had the bright idea that with "Argos" reaching the end of her life in 2024 a new "hospital" ship can be funded by raiding the International Development budget.
Sounds like Mr Cummings really is getting to shake-up thinking in the dusty ,corridors of power......
Sounds like Mr Cummings really is getting to shake-up thinking in the dusty ,corridors of power......
Thread Starter
Indeed - tho they point out it couldn't be labelled as a "hospital Ship" without significantly impacting on any real military use
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently someone has had the bright idea that with "Argos" reaching the end of her life in 2024 a new "hospital" ship can be funded by raiding the International Development budget.
Sounds like Mr Cummings really is getting to shake-up thinking in the dusty ,corridors of power......
Sounds like Mr Cummings really is getting to shake-up thinking in the dusty ,corridors of power......
Am I alone in being slightly wary of the Dominic Cummings "cult" which seems to be evidenced in much of the recent content of this thread?
I don't doubt that he has a sharp brain, but beyond that he is something of a legend of his own making /in his own lunchtime. A blind man running for his life could call out "defence spending" as an area for attention in the UK, and contrary to the views held by most people on here, Joe public is largely disinterested (until the balloon goes up obviously).
Unlike the NHS, welfare and education, where there is intense public and political focus, there would be little fallout from a decision, say , to mothball the carriers on cost grounds, and certainly none to trouble a government with an 80 seat majority in the early phase of its term. Cummings seems to have a gratuitously abrasive style, which may have served him well thus far, but in attacking the defence and defence procurement establishments, he is taking on a behemoth, and one well versed in the techniques of obfuscation, delay, and generally draining their enemy of energy. Do we not find it odd that such a task seems to have been outsourced to an unelected advisor with what seems to be an unlimited brief? Does he control Boris, or is this a clever tactic by Boris to keep his attack dog fit between elections by allowing it to savage civil servants, safe in the knowledge that nothing will really change anyway?
Ironically, while I question his approach and his capability for the task, I wish him well. The status quo stinks from almost every perspective. Were it not for the extraordinary capability and flexibility of Service personnel, the whole edifice would surely have crumbled before now. How long till it does?
I don't doubt that he has a sharp brain, but beyond that he is something of a legend of his own making /in his own lunchtime. A blind man running for his life could call out "defence spending" as an area for attention in the UK, and contrary to the views held by most people on here, Joe public is largely disinterested (until the balloon goes up obviously).
Unlike the NHS, welfare and education, where there is intense public and political focus, there would be little fallout from a decision, say , to mothball the carriers on cost grounds, and certainly none to trouble a government with an 80 seat majority in the early phase of its term. Cummings seems to have a gratuitously abrasive style, which may have served him well thus far, but in attacking the defence and defence procurement establishments, he is taking on a behemoth, and one well versed in the techniques of obfuscation, delay, and generally draining their enemy of energy. Do we not find it odd that such a task seems to have been outsourced to an unelected advisor with what seems to be an unlimited brief? Does he control Boris, or is this a clever tactic by Boris to keep his attack dog fit between elections by allowing it to savage civil servants, safe in the knowledge that nothing will really change anyway?
Ironically, while I question his approach and his capability for the task, I wish him well. The status quo stinks from almost every perspective. Were it not for the extraordinary capability and flexibility of Service personnel, the whole edifice would surely have crumbled before now. How long till it does?
Thread Starter
Be interesting to see how all the cash being diverted to the virus mitigation efforts impacts on Defence - less all round would be my guess.................
Thread Starter
Given the scale of Govt spending I suspect the cuts to military spending are going to be a lot deeper than we thought even 4 weeks ago
I can see them spending on the frigates etc as that's UK jobs but the size of the F-35 order must be at risk and the deterrent looks like a very large sum of money that could be used to pay down what will an astronomical level of debt
I can see them spending on the frigates etc as that's UK jobs but the size of the F-35 order must be at risk and the deterrent looks like a very large sum of money that could be used to pay down what will an astronomical level of debt
Asturias56,
"4 weeks ago" the talk was of additional funding NOT cuts, with even the PM acknowledging the need to "do more." I would imagine that is now firmly, and rightly, on hold.
But, under the current circumstances, do you really think that anyone will countenance any reduction in the established strength of the regular Army, which WAS one of the options being explored publically?
"4 weeks ago" the talk was of additional funding NOT cuts, with even the PM acknowledging the need to "do more." I would imagine that is now firmly, and rightly, on hold.
But, under the current circumstances, do you really think that anyone will countenance any reduction in the established strength of the regular Army, which WAS one of the options being explored publically?
Thread Starter
Right now - probably not - but the Review will be pushed back if only because they can't meet to discuss - once the virus has gone they'll be looking at the bill - and the debt , and the debt, and the debt............
Higher taxes are a certainty and there will cuts in all directions
Higher taxes are a certainty and there will cuts in all directions
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: An Ivory Tower
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
The Economist reckons "the probability that others could experience extreme declines in GDP in 2020—perhaps as large as 10%—grows by the day."
" A dangerous pandemic working its way across a highly integrated global economy is an unprecedented event. Still, a few historical patterns are worth noting. First, and most obviously, the duration of the economic pain depends on how much goes wrong as a result of the initial shock. Germany and Austria fared worse than other first-world-war combatants because they lost the war and their empires, and suffered state collapse and hyperinflation. If countries today can survive massive output declines without sustaining much institutional damage, that bodes well for the pace of recovery.Second, large drops in output often accompany a fracturing of global trade networks. The success with which those trade ties are restored matters for the robustness of the economic rebound. Western Europe enjoyed explosive growth in the years after the second world war, thanks in part to efforts to knit trade back together—a very different outcome from that following the first. Similarly, the world must hope that trade recovers quickly when the pandemic ebbs.
And third, it is important to get macroeconomic policy right. The global financial crisis, and the euro-area debt woes which followed, did not kill millions of people or destroy valuable infrastructure, but the sluggish recovery that followed left Europe both economically and politically vulnerable to new shocks.
Even the mildest brush with the coronavirus could prove economically destructive if governments are reluctant to provide enough stimulus. The world should be able to bounce back to growth once covid-19 is brought under control. It has only to avoid the errors of history.■"
" A dangerous pandemic working its way across a highly integrated global economy is an unprecedented event. Still, a few historical patterns are worth noting. First, and most obviously, the duration of the economic pain depends on how much goes wrong as a result of the initial shock. Germany and Austria fared worse than other first-world-war combatants because they lost the war and their empires, and suffered state collapse and hyperinflation. If countries today can survive massive output declines without sustaining much institutional damage, that bodes well for the pace of recovery.Second, large drops in output often accompany a fracturing of global trade networks. The success with which those trade ties are restored matters for the robustness of the economic rebound. Western Europe enjoyed explosive growth in the years after the second world war, thanks in part to efforts to knit trade back together—a very different outcome from that following the first. Similarly, the world must hope that trade recovers quickly when the pandemic ebbs.
And third, it is important to get macroeconomic policy right. The global financial crisis, and the euro-area debt woes which followed, did not kill millions of people or destroy valuable infrastructure, but the sluggish recovery that followed left Europe both economically and politically vulnerable to new shocks.
Even the mildest brush with the coronavirus could prove economically destructive if governments are reluctant to provide enough stimulus. The world should be able to bounce back to growth once covid-19 is brought under control. It has only to avoid the errors of history.■"
Thread Starter
Looking at the wads of cash being spent on the various anti-virus measures I can only see swinging cuts when this Review finally takes place. The UK will be awash with debt - far, far more than we ever thought even in Jeremy Corbyn had go tin - and business and workers will be in no shape to pay extra taxes for several years. 
