Budget post Covid
Thread Starter
Budget post Covid
I have a nasty feeling that Options for Change and the 2010 cuts will seem small potatoes compared to what is coming over the horizon.
Obviously no fat in the system so what might be vulnerable?
Carriers (One, Both?)
the full 148 F-35's?
Obviously the Arrows, BBMF, Bands and all the none direct stuff will get a good hard look at.
Hard to imagine Arrows moving from Scampton in the short term and all the expense involved.
Personally, If I was treasury I'd scrap all the C-17's and A-400's - if they are gone it is hard to imagine how we could support an war outside Europe - the last thing the budget would need is another Afgan/Irag gig
Obviously no fat in the system so what might be vulnerable?
Carriers (One, Both?)
the full 148 F-35's?
Obviously the Arrows, BBMF, Bands and all the none direct stuff will get a good hard look at.
Hard to imagine Arrows moving from Scampton in the short term and all the expense involved.
Personally, If I was treasury I'd scrap all the C-17's and A-400's - if they are gone it is hard to imagine how we could support an war outside Europe - the last thing the budget would need is another Afgan/Irag gig
Hard to imagine how we'd support any exercises abroad too...
There is lots of fat in the system. Lots of special interests keeping hold of spending to justify empires.
If you were building the services from sctrach what would you have, start there and compare it to what is now in existence. The start would be to perform intense surgery to get to there. The vested interests would be screaming to the press.
Paring back some of the Foreign office budget that funds overseas expeditions might also be a start. Funding overseas expeditions under "Foreign Office" sounds a bit hollow when staff have not got PPE to look after people in the health service.
A large look at NHS should also happen as £500 million a day is spent on NHS. The veneration of NHS as saviours is wonderful but it should not become a sacred cow where inefficiences, incomptence and fraud are allowed to continue.
If you were building the services from sctrach what would you have, start there and compare it to what is now in existence. The start would be to perform intense surgery to get to there. The vested interests would be screaming to the press.
Paring back some of the Foreign office budget that funds overseas expeditions might also be a start. Funding overseas expeditions under "Foreign Office" sounds a bit hollow when staff have not got PPE to look after people in the health service.
A large look at NHS should also happen as £500 million a day is spent on NHS. The veneration of NHS as saviours is wonderful but it should not become a sacred cow where inefficiences, incomptence and fraud are allowed to continue.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Racedo, I take your point but the PR of seen to be getting rid of the nags in lieu of front line kit might be in play, ditto HMS Victory and BBMF (I don't believe I just said that 
). Another thought; British Defence Forces, anybody? Have our days of Expeditionary warfare gone?
). Another thought; British Defence Forces, anybody? Have our days of Expeditionary warfare gone?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Up North….
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Racedo, I take your point but the PR of seen to be getting rid of the nags in lieu of front line kit might be in play, ditto HMS Victory and BBMF (I don't believe I just said that ). Another thought; British Defence Forces, anybody? Have our days of Expeditionary warfare gone?
). Another thought; British Defence Forces, anybody? Have our days of Expeditionary warfare gone?Doing it to support big business which is what it has been doing, is no reason to do it.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: moraira,spain-Norfolk, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No budget cuts
Seeing what the forces have been used for during the Pandemic, I
think they should be formally re-purposed to have a "Civil protection"
role, and then receive budget allocations for that. I gather that after
swine-flu and SARS epidemics meetings and "thought experiments" took place,
but no actual preparations, nor equipment stockpiled. My neighbours company
was actually able to supply 4000 hospital beds for; guess where ? Which they
had previously procured from the Health service and kept in stock.
Seeing what the forces have been used for during the Pandemic, I
think they should be formally re-purposed to have a "Civil protection"
role, and then receive budget allocations for that. I gather that after
swine-flu and SARS epidemics meetings and "thought experiments" took place,
but no actual preparations, nor equipment stockpiled. My neighbours company
was actually able to supply 4000 hospital beds for; guess where ? Which they
had previously procured from the Health service and kept in stock.
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF Cadet Gliding.
Ditch Air Cadet Gliding. Its been massacred any way. Its only pennies in the overall budget. But the Penny pinchers at the MOD / RAF would consider it a tick in the box.(and promotion ! ) PS.. Sorry......just my cynical my showing its self.
No budget cuts
Seeing what the forces have been used for during the Pandemic, I
think they should be formally re-purposed to have a "Civil protection"
role, and then receive budget allocations for that. I gather that after
swine-flu and SARS epidemics meetings and "thought experiments" took place,
but no actual preparations, nor equipment stockpiled. My neighbours company
was actually able to supply 4000 hospital beds for; guess where ? Which they
had previously procured from the Health service and kept in stock.
Seeing what the forces have been used for during the Pandemic, I
think they should be formally re-purposed to have a "Civil protection"
role, and then receive budget allocations for that. I gather that after
swine-flu and SARS epidemics meetings and "thought experiments" took place,
but no actual preparations, nor equipment stockpiled. My neighbours company
was actually able to supply 4000 hospital beds for; guess where ? Which they
had previously procured from the Health service and kept in stock.
Thread Starter
No budget cuts
Seeing what the forces have been used for during the Pandemic, I
think they should be formally re-purposed to have a "Civil protection"
role, and then receive budget allocations for that. I gather that after
swine-flu and SARS epidemics meetings and "thought experiments" took place,
but no actual preparations, nor equipment stockpiled. My neighbours company
was actually able to supply 4000 hospital beds for; guess where ? Which they
had previously procured from the Health service and kept in stock.
Seeing what the forces have been used for during the Pandemic, I
think they should be formally re-purposed to have a "Civil protection"
role, and then receive budget allocations for that. I gather that after
swine-flu and SARS epidemics meetings and "thought experiments" took place,
but no actual preparations, nor equipment stockpiled. My neighbours company
was actually able to supply 4000 hospital beds for; guess where ? Which they
had previously procured from the Health service and kept in stock.
I really dont think there will be money for much
Tax falls through the floor and benefits sky high.
Probably NHS budget will rightly increase too.
Surely with massive unemployment and an economy in deep distress, the priority will be on restoring activity, irrespective of the budget balance.
So I think it is the best of times for intelligent spending proposals, stuff that the treasury would have squelched in an instant previously now has a chance to be considered.
What is missing is the actual proposals. Has everyone in the UK military been stricken?
So I think it is the best of times for intelligent spending proposals, stuff that the treasury would have squelched in an instant previously now has a chance to be considered.
What is missing is the actual proposals. Has everyone in the UK military been stricken?
Canada's deficit is projected to go from 19 Billion dollars last year to potentially 200 Billion this year. As a middle power like the UK, albeit at a lower tranche in the power projection pecking order, anybody currently serving in any branch of the Canadian Armed Forces is delusional if they think there is not going to be massive changes in how the CAF is funded in the future.
In a perfect world it is time for the all the branch elders get together and put aside inter service bickering and come up with a plan to manage defense cuts of 10%,20%,30%,40% and 50 % and a doomsday 75%. One thing is for certain, if senior leaders let the politicians make the force capability decision for them, they are not going to like the results
One of the unpalatable realities, is that for Canada, per capita defense dollars go in the order of Air Force - Navy - Army. A 50 % cut, which is my prediction, means an Army centric CAF with just enough air assets to support mobility and just enough other Air Force and Navy assets to meet the national sovereignty mission. It pains me to say this as a Navy veteran but the Army gives the most bang for he buck. It would mean the whole sale parking of a large part of the Air Force and Navy assets and the cancelling of many land warfare capabilities. .
While terrible in the short term. I actually think it would be good in the long term because it would force a total reset and require a cold clear eyed answer to the fundamental question, "Why do we have a Military and what do we as a nation, want it to do" ? The brass hats better have good answers when, not if the budget ax falls......
I would suggest the UK Military is in a broadly similar position to Canada with a special caveat for the nuclear forces.
In a perfect world it is time for the all the branch elders get together and put aside inter service bickering and come up with a plan to manage defense cuts of 10%,20%,30%,40% and 50 % and a doomsday 75%. One thing is for certain, if senior leaders let the politicians make the force capability decision for them, they are not going to like the results
One of the unpalatable realities, is that for Canada, per capita defense dollars go in the order of Air Force - Navy - Army. A 50 % cut, which is my prediction, means an Army centric CAF with just enough air assets to support mobility and just enough other Air Force and Navy assets to meet the national sovereignty mission. It pains me to say this as a Navy veteran but the Army gives the most bang for he buck. It would mean the whole sale parking of a large part of the Air Force and Navy assets and the cancelling of many land warfare capabilities. .
While terrible in the short term. I actually think it would be good in the long term because it would force a total reset and require a cold clear eyed answer to the fundamental question, "Why do we have a Military and what do we as a nation, want it to do" ? The brass hats better have good answers when, not if the budget ax falls......
I would suggest the UK Military is in a broadly similar position to Canada with a special caveat for the nuclear forces.
Thread Starter
Canada's deficit is projected to go from 19 Billion dollars last year to potentially 200 Billion this year. As a middle power like the UK, albeit at a lower tranche in the power projection pecking order, anybody currently serving in any branch of the Canadian Armed Forces is delusional if they think there is not going to be massive changes in how the CAF is funded in the future.
In a perfect world it is time for the all the branch elders get together and put aside inter service bickering and come up with a plan to manage defense cuts of 10%,20%,30%,40% and 50 % and a doomsday 75%. One thing is for certain, if senior leaders let the politicians make the force capability decision for them, they are not going to like the results
One of the unpalatable realities, is that for Canada, per capita defense dollars go in the order of Air Force - Navy - Army. A 50 % cut, which is my prediction, means an Army centric CAF with just enough air assets to support mobility and just enough other Air Force and Navy assets to meet the national sovereignty mission. It pains me to say this as a Navy veteran but the Army gives the most bang for he buck. It would mean the whole sale parking of a large part of the Air Force and Navy assets and the cancelling of many land warfare capabilities. .
While terrible in the short term. I actually think it would be good in the long term because it would force a total reset and require a cold clear eyed answer to the fundamental question, "Why do we have a Military and what do we as a nation, want it to do" ? The brass hats better have good answers when, not if the budget ax falls......
I would suggest the UK Military is in a broadly similar position to Canada with a special caveat for the nuclear forces.
In a perfect world it is time for the all the branch elders get together and put aside inter service bickering and come up with a plan to manage defense cuts of 10%,20%,30%,40% and 50 % and a doomsday 75%. One thing is for certain, if senior leaders let the politicians make the force capability decision for them, they are not going to like the results
One of the unpalatable realities, is that for Canada, per capita defense dollars go in the order of Air Force - Navy - Army. A 50 % cut, which is my prediction, means an Army centric CAF with just enough air assets to support mobility and just enough other Air Force and Navy assets to meet the national sovereignty mission. It pains me to say this as a Navy veteran but the Army gives the most bang for he buck. It would mean the whole sale parking of a large part of the Air Force and Navy assets and the cancelling of many land warfare capabilities. .
While terrible in the short term. I actually think it would be good in the long term because it would force a total reset and require a cold clear eyed answer to the fundamental question, "Why do we have a Military and what do we as a nation, want it to do" ? The brass hats better have good answers when, not if the budget ax falls......
I would suggest the UK Military is in a broadly similar position to Canada with a special caveat for the nuclear forces.
Interesting points..I think all you can say is there will be blood on the floor between the services - as usual!
I'd forgotten about Trident replacement - If it carried on it might be THE defence budget!
Also will be interesting to see what happens in the US, especially if Trump stays in power. Can't imagine he will understand the realities and cut back defence spending...
He'll also still be pressing NATO for the 2% commitment!
Expansionist China, add Russia
If you want to ignore the very real and definite threat from the two other massive super powers it’s a no brainer.
It would also be worth looking back to the late 1930s and the aftermath from 1945. It is now time to see if anything at all was learnt.
China and Russia will take what they want, when they want if you want to instantly balance the books.
iF Russia took the Falklands when we have a defence force, if China took New Zealand, if Russia moved into northern Canada- we’d have sent the invite.
The IR has a single chance to put things right for the clear and present danger, if they don’t we will see rude behaviour this decade.
Lets live with the debt, let’s cut many of the nonsense made up roles, let’s become efficient, let’s be ready to fight with The hardware we have, not pens and Word documents. Let’s stop buying Mink carpets and be accountable for the fraud that is still over looked when it comes to CEA etc etc. Lets get ready to see any pay rises offset by higher taxes. Lets stop the vanity projects.
Lets not hand a massive advantage to our opposition, who are better at exploiting our weaknesses than we are at identifying them.
It would also be worth looking back to the late 1930s and the aftermath from 1945. It is now time to see if anything at all was learnt.
China and Russia will take what they want, when they want if you want to instantly balance the books.
iF Russia took the Falklands when we have a defence force, if China took New Zealand, if Russia moved into northern Canada- we’d have sent the invite.
The IR has a single chance to put things right for the clear and present danger, if they don’t we will see rude behaviour this decade.
Lets live with the debt, let’s cut many of the nonsense made up roles, let’s become efficient, let’s be ready to fight with The hardware we have, not pens and Word documents. Let’s stop buying Mink carpets and be accountable for the fraud that is still over looked when it comes to CEA etc etc. Lets get ready to see any pay rises offset by higher taxes. Lets stop the vanity projects.
Lets not hand a massive advantage to our opposition, who are better at exploiting our weaknesses than we are at identifying them.
'Trident replacement'; isn't that already ring fenced with an independent budget, not part of defence ?
'Trump and NATO 2%'; defaulting nations could strengthen the Trump view of not wishing to fund the defence of Europe, thus enabling his defence cuts by tit-for-tat withdrawal, but beware Finland, Norway. Some facets of this could aid the UK; excuse to withdraw from international 'policing' (vs national interest: medical, food, oil).
'Super Powers take what they want'; post WW2 the acquisitions were defensive border buffering opposed to territorial gain. Ensuring vital resources would be a concern now if that involved oil; unlikely if immediate future demand remains low. Prime resources could be the basics, food, water, contributing means of pacifying internal dissent; Russia, China, track record shows both capability and experience in this.
Not so the US, particularly if imported resource is goods and/or people (food / agriculture), those which challenge the complacent, world dominant, 'rich culture' - money. Compare this with post WW2 US dominated economics, but if the US couldn't have their own way, new ground, new politics …
'Trump and NATO 2%'; defaulting nations could strengthen the Trump view of not wishing to fund the defence of Europe, thus enabling his defence cuts by tit-for-tat withdrawal, but beware Finland, Norway. Some facets of this could aid the UK; excuse to withdraw from international 'policing' (vs national interest: medical, food, oil).
'Super Powers take what they want'; post WW2 the acquisitions were defensive border buffering opposed to territorial gain. Ensuring vital resources would be a concern now if that involved oil; unlikely if immediate future demand remains low. Prime resources could be the basics, food, water, contributing means of pacifying internal dissent; Russia, China, track record shows both capability and experience in this.
Not so the US, particularly if imported resource is goods and/or people (food / agriculture), those which challenge the complacent, world dominant, 'rich culture' - money. Compare this with post WW2 US dominated economics, but if the US couldn't have their own way, new ground, new politics …
[QUOTE=safetypee;10771977]'Trident replacement'; isn't that already ring fenced with an independent budget, not part of defence ?
QUOTE] Urban myth. Has not been so since Polaris. Dwarfs spending on most other projects, including carriers F35 etc.
Watch out for Chally 2 units having been essential to delivery of C-19 tests kits once this is over.
QUOTE] Urban myth. Has not been so since Polaris. Dwarfs spending on most other projects, including carriers F35 etc.
Watch out for Chally 2 units having been essential to delivery of C-19 tests kits once this is over.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
with the deficit governments are going to be running for the net couple of decades and required defence spending is, frankly, going to get lost in the noise.....