Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents

Old 15th Oct 2022, 17:46
  #901 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brizzle
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Also, problem at the moment for industry is MoD seems more concerned about replenishing stocks than funding shiny new toys.
Great if you're in the munition production business, less great if you're in the new product development business.
Programme delays incoming?
Flap Track 6 is online now  
Old 22nd Oct 2022, 17:22
  #902 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,167
Received 318 Likes on 184 Posts
According to the Times today the current Chancellor, Hunt, is talking of freezing UK Defence spending for 5 years at least
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2022, 12:01
  #903 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,911
Received 133 Likes on 60 Posts
Rumour today that all Govt departments, including Defence, will have budgets cut by 4%.

So much for 3%…
pr00ne is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2022, 14:49
  #904 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 249
Received 37 Likes on 18 Posts
Originally Posted by pr00ne
Rumour today that all Govt departments, including Defence, will have budgets cut by 4%.

So much for 3%…
Sunak is confirmed as the new PM. This will be an interesting watch as he has repeatedly refused to agree to the 3% of GDP for Defence by 2030, and Hunt is known to be against it.
If Sunak keeps Hunt as Chancellor, I think the 3% is at risk, and Ben Wallace has publicly stated he will resign as SecDef if the pledge is not honoured. I for one would hate to see him go - he really does seem to have the best interests of the MoD at his heart.

With Ukraine, not to mention uncertainty around the world, I think now is not the time for a real-terms cut in Defence, but then again I am not a politician. If departments such as Health and Education have to take a hit, then I understand it would be politically difficult for Defence not to. I guess we will know soon enough...
Baldeep Inminj is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2022, 19:46
  #905 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 16,908
Received 1,318 Likes on 600 Posts
NEW: @DefenceHQ will need about £8billion from the Treasury over the next 2 years to protect the defence budget *in real terms* against the impact of inflation & foreign exchange, Defence Secretary @BWallaceMP has just indicated in comments to @CommonsDefence

This is really important as it gives a sense of what Ben Wallace will be fighting for in his discussions with Chancellor @Jeremy_Hunt just to maintain a planned increase in defence spending out to 2024/25 - let alone striving to increase the defence budget any further.

The Defence Secretary was specifically referring to the projected pressures caused by inflation and foreign exchange rates on the defence budget. He said: "The inflationary pressures on my budget for the next 2 years is about £8billion - and forex".

He continues: "The initial battle for the next few years is insulation from inflation and forex".….
ORAC is online now  
Old 3rd Nov 2022, 02:22
  #906 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,911
Received 133 Likes on 60 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
NEW: @DefenceHQ will need about £8billion from the Treasury over the next 2 years to protect the defence budget *in real terms* against the impact of inflation & foreign exchange, Defence Secretary @BWallaceMP has just indicated in comments to @CommonsDefence

This is really important as it gives a sense of what Ben Wallace will be fighting for in his discussions with Chancellor @Jeremy_Hunt just to maintain a planned increase in defence spending out to 2024/25 - let alone striving to increase the defence budget any further.

The Defence Secretary was specifically referring to the projected pressures caused by inflation and foreign exchange rates on the defence budget. He said: "The inflationary pressures on my budget for the next 2 years is about £8billion - and forex".

He continues: "The initial battle for the next few years is insulation from inflation and forex".….
So, seems that Wallace has rather changed his tune; from not getting an increase to 3% being a resigning matter, to resisting inflationary and forex pressures over the next 2 years... C-130J, Tranche 1 Typhoon and 9 Chinooks still all to go, nothing that they seem to be able to do to fix the car crash that is aircrew training, tiny training fleets smaller than some African Air Forces, but, on the up side, maybe, just mabe, he is going to keep the strength of the Army at 76,000 rather than the current planned cut to 73,500. Defence, safe in the hands of the Tories eh?
pr00ne is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2022, 10:13
  #907 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,167
Received 318 Likes on 184 Posts
"Defence, safe in the hands of the Tories eh?"

Never has been I'm afraid - all the way back to '56

The real problem is the the politicians insist on the UK playing a Great Power role but never put up the cash for it - I'd love to hear someone say

"we're going to spend 4% on the military so there goes the Pension Triple Lock folks!"
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2022, 11:49
  #908 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 502
Received 146 Likes on 77 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
"Defence, safe in the hands of the Tories eh?"

Never has been I'm afraid - all the way back to '56

The real problem is the the politicians insist on the UK playing a Great Power role but never put up the cash for it - I'd love to hear someone say

"we're going to spend 4% on the military so there goes the Pension Triple Lock folks!"
Or probably more usefully say - "The NHS is a broken model. No other country on earth copies it. It consumes something like 15% of government spending and is always hungry for more. That funding model is fundamentally flawed and we intend to move towards a european style model where central funding is only a small part of the mix".
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2022, 17:45
  #909 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,167
Received 318 Likes on 184 Posts
The NHS provides, historically, average outcomes for little money - the problem is its now providing awful outcomes for little money
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2022, 19:44
  #910 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 180
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
The NHS provides, historically, average outcomes for little money - the problem is its now providing awful outcomes for little money
15% (ish) of government expenditure is a bit more than "little money" in my opinion.
SamYeager is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2022, 06:03
  #911 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 2,575
Received 504 Likes on 278 Posts
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
Or probably more usefully say - "The NHS is a broken model. No other country on earth copies it. It consumes something like 15% of government spending and is always hungry for more. That funding model is fundamentally flawed and we intend to move towards a european style model where central funding is only a small part of the mix".
All that does is consume the same amount of cash by a different route. Taxation or insurance, either way the public pays,

Last edited by Ninthace; 4th Nov 2022 at 12:33.
Ninthace is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2022, 10:27
  #912 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,167
Received 318 Likes on 184 Posts
"15% (ish) of government expenditure is a bit more than "little money" in my opinion."

the comparison is with other countries

places like Germany spend a lot and have very good outcomes


Spain spends an average amount and gets average outcomes

the Uk spends relatively little and used to get average outcomes

the USA spends a fortune and gets poor outcomes

Indonesia spends little and gets poor outcomes


Asturias56 is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2022, 12:33
  #913 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 16,908
Received 1,318 Likes on 600 Posts
Relatively little? Government spending only exceeded by 3 of the EU 27.

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/...nt/860615c9-en



ORAC is online now  
Old 4th Nov 2022, 12:55
  #914 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,082
Received 125 Likes on 66 Posts
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
Or probably more usefully say - "The NHS is a broken model. No other country on earth copies it. It consumes something like 15% of government spending and is always hungry for more. That funding model is fundamentally flawed and we intend to move towards a european style model where central funding is only a small part of the mix".
Whatever you think of the rights or wrongs of the NHS funding model in this country, you can be absolutely sure that the current ideologues in government will NEVER move to a European model, no matter how much sense it makes. Nope, it's the US model these fanatics aspire to, and we'll all be wishing for 'the good old NHS' if/when that ever happens.

Now, military aviation....
melmothtw is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2022, 10:10
  #915 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,167
Received 318 Likes on 184 Posts
ORAC - I was looking at Kings Fund reports - they compare (or try and compare) like with like - you have ot takeinto account that not every country handles social provision etc in the same way

Some even have a joined up health and social system!
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2022, 13:43
  #916 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 16,908
Received 1,318 Likes on 600 Posts
Excellent thread with some salient points.

Pentagon acquisition chief Bill LaPlante says Ukraine has helped him understand what really matters. "What really matters is production."

"We as a country did our best to not do production," LaPlante said. "We all accepted that just in time was the way to go," LaPlante says.

This is why we have a valley of death because we don't want to do production….

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...586646528.html
ORAC is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 5th Nov 2022, 16:40
  #917 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,219
Received 145 Likes on 60 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
"What really matters is production."
Recognising this, MoD had a mandatory Defence Standard to facilitate it.

Its use was forbidden (but still mandated) from 1991, following the move in April 1990 from 'just in time' to 'not in time', whereby replenishment would not commence until there were outstanding demands.

As part of this, and to hasten the run down of stocks, serviceable spares and War Reserves were scrapped.

I wonder if the US ever graduated to not in time? That AMSO policy took a special kind of incompetence.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2022, 08:30
  #918 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,167
Received 318 Likes on 184 Posts
Nothing wrong withe policy when the USSR had just collapsed - but, like the 10 year rule between the wars, these things tend to become entrenched as it means you have to suddenly start spending money when you reverse them.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2022, 09:31
  #919 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,219
Received 145 Likes on 60 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Nothing wrong withe policy when the USSR had just collapsed - but, like the 10 year rule between the wars, these things tend to become entrenched as it means you have to suddenly start spending money when you reverse them.
A gentle reminder that something kicked off in late 1990. When War Reserves were called forward.... Politicians were criticised for lack of preparedness, but in many cases it was nothing to do with them.

And I suggest that there is something very wrong with a policy that scraps spares, then immediately procures replacements (because one hand doesn't know what the other is doing), only for them to be scrapped again, and so on for at least 8 years.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2022, 10:44
  #920 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,737
Received 152 Likes on 54 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Nothing wrong withe policy when the USSR had just collapsed - but, like the 10 year rule between the wars, these things tend to become entrenched as it means you have to suddenly start spending money when you reverse them.
There is everything wrong with driving a coach and horses through regulations and procedures that were developed over decades to ensure that whatever was put into service was fit for use and, in the case of military aviation, airworthy. The deliberate sabotage of those regulations by RAF VSOs that Tuc alludes to wasn't for the purpose of harvesting a Peace Dividend but to cover up the incompetence of those same RAF VSOs and their desperate need to raid ring-fenced Air Safety budgets to fund the results of that incompetence. Their cover up has in turn been continued to this day by succeeding generations of VSOs in order to protect the reputation of the Star Chamber. As a result, airworthiness related fatal accidents continue and UK Military Air Power remains compromised. There is everything wrong with that I would suggest.
Chugalug2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.