New Defence Review, higher or lower?

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by Brian 48nav

I hate all the political rubbish that is spouted in the Military Aviation section BUT for all you know-alls I think you'll find that the £ was almost at parity with the US Dollar in the early eighties( 1980s ). Way way before Brexit.

To bring that point back to military aviation, in the early 1980s the UK defence budget was not so nearly so slaved to the US dollar as it is today, and will be for the coming years as we continue to buy F-35s, AH-64s, E-7s, Protectors, more P-8s maybe, etc....

[Biggus]

Originally Posted by melmothtw

To bring that point back to military aviation, in the early 1980s the UK defence budget was not so nearly so slaved to the US dollar as it is today, and will be for the coming years as we continue to buy F-35s, AH-64s, E-7s, Protectors, more P-8s maybe, etc....

Let's try and add some perspective to this. I've got these figures through a very quick search on my phone, so they might not be totally accurate, or both from the same financial year, but the principle is sound - and no doubt someone will correct me (hopefully politely) on the numbers.

Defence Budget £48 Bn. Amount spent on procurement £12 Bn.

So it would appear that only about a quarter of the Defence Budget is spent on procurement - and not all of that is American kit.

So, if we go for a period of expansion. Recruiting and training more soldiers, sailors and airman, and then paying them, the cost of that is going to be funded in pounds! Maintenance of current facilities in the UK,and possible expansion, pounds again. Warships built in UK shipyards, pounds. Training more pilots - pounds.

Yes, much of the high tech kit we buy these days is American, so the exchange rate WILL matter. But it won't impact all of the Defence Budget, and orders might be stretched over a longer period to compensate for the higher unit costs.

Best I duck back out of this now.....

[petit plateau]

Originally Posted by Bob Viking

And the last time I went to France before Brexit (2011) I got €1.06 to the £.

BV

Originally Posted by Biggus

Let's try and add some perspective to this. I've got these figures through a very quick search on my phone, so they might not be totally accurate, or both from the same financial year, but the principle is sound - and no doubt someone will correct me (hopefully politely) on the numbers.

Defence Budget £48 Bn. Amount spent on procurement £12 Bn.

So it would appear that only about a quarter of the Defence Budget is spent on procurement - and not all of that is American kit.

So, if we go for a period of expansion. Recruiting and training more soldiers, sailors and airman, and then paying them, the cost of that is going to be funded in pounds! Maintenance of current facilities in the UK,and possible expansion, pounds again. Warships built in UK shipyards, pounds. Training more pilots - pounds.

Yes, much of the high tech kit we buy these days is American, so the exchange rate WILL matter. But it won't impact all of the Defence Budget, and orders might be stretched over a longer period to compensate for the higher unit costs.

Best I duck back out of this now.....

In 2011 the USD/GBP rate was approx 1.62 USD per GBP (not knowing the month of your trip I cannot be more precise). So a 32% decrease in th eexchange rate in that time, of which 29% of th edecline was in the last 7-years since the Brexit referendum was announced.

https://www.exchangerates.org.uk/GBP...tory-2011.html

The point being that as anybidy doing defenc economics will know, the UK is in a hole and it is a long run trend that is not getting better.

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/ba...gbp/GBP-to-USD

The self inflicted wound of Brexit has made things even worse in the last several years, i.e. on top of all the other woes that come from running a persistent current account deficit and relying on the charity of others. This has very obvious real-world consequences to defence, especially when lusting after the shiny shiny such as P8, E7, and much of the embedded systems in pretty much everything.. It also has consequences for operational costs (oil, fuel, lubes are all priced in USD - remember the days of slow steaming ?), food and munitions (all predominantly composed of USD costs). Then given that a large chunk of the defence budget is personnel costs (present & past) and the ever-lower GBP results in imported inflation, these too become more costly.

Dreaming of expansion is all very good. Paying for it on this trajectory is something else entirely.

[Asturias56]

"Warships built in UK shipyards,"

Which yards? there are only a couple left - and the most important one at Barrow is full for the foreseeable future

[Ninthace]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

"Warships built in UK shipyards,"

Which yards? there are only a couple left - and the most important one at Barrow is full for the foreseeable future

There is a shipyard at Appledore that could build warships of a size we can afford and is short of work.

[Asturias56]

I have some sympathy for the idea that we could build a lot more Patrol type vessels - which is what we need (amongst other types) but then you have to have the on-going cash to maintain - something that seems to pass the politicians by

[Bengo]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

I have some sympathy for the idea that we could build a lot more Patrol type vessels - which is what we need (amongst other types) but then you have to have the on-going cash to maintain - something that seems to pass the politicians by

It is not just the maintenance money. A large part of through-life cost of a warship is the cost of the ship's company. Not just the costs of sailors on board today either, but the pipeline of replacements and their pensions all have to be funded. That is one reason why SSN(R) and the QE pair are so automated, reducing the complement as much as practicable.

N

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

I have some sympathy for the idea that we could build a lot more Patrol type vessels - which is what we need (amongst other types) but then you have to have the on-going cash to maintain - something that seems to pass the politicians by

What - precisely - do we need them to patrol and against what threat?

[pr00ne]

Originally Posted by Finningley Boy

Dear all,

You have all likely read in your Daily Paper today that the PM is going to order a Defence Review particularly driven by the current climate between the West and Russia/China. What do you reckon will be the likely outcome? A move toward expansion, by any small degree, and modernization? Or are you so used to the usual damp squib results of all the reviews since the early 90s you can't bring yourself to expect any different? Answers on a post on this thread!

FB

Finningley Boy,

With the gigantic mess that Truss and her Chancellor are making of the UK economy, you will be lucky if the size of the reduction in defence
spending that this incompetent shower will announce along with all other public sector and Whitehall cuts on Nov 23rd is less than 5%.
Remember, all that Truss has promised on Defence spending is that by 2030 it will be 3% of GDP.
Truss will be gone WAY before 2030!
Letters of no confidence are already being submitted to the 1922 Committee.

And, if by some miracle she does survive till May 2024, the electorate will show her the door.

[Bob Viking]

I’m confused.

We are constantly being told that we need more diversity in the higher echelons of power. Well we have managed that in fine style by pushing all those dastardly white males out of the corridors of power. Yet now we seem to be suggesting that this ethnically and gender diverse cabinet has made a bit of a cock up with the nations finances. I was led to believe that greater diversity brings with it greater achievements. Am I allowed to criticise them or am I then a racist/misogynist/bigot?

BV

[Asturias56]

"What - precisely - do we need them to patrol and against what threat?"

Well there's Illegal immigration, fishing, disaster relief and drugs enforcement and it might be nice to have a force big enough that we don't have to use RFA's and tankers to handle such issues .

[Toadstool]

Originally Posted by Bob Viking

We are constantly being told that we need more diversity in the higher echelons of power. Well we have managed that in fine style by pushing all those dastardly white males out of the corridors of power. Yet now we seem to be suggesting that this ethnically and gender diverse cabinet has made a bit of a cock up with the nations finances. I was led to believe that greater diversity brings with it greater achievements. Am I allowed to criticise them or am I then a racist/misogynist/bigot?

BV

Bob

the irony of this increased drive for diversity by CAS is the complete lack of diversity for anyone that has undertaken his specific role. Do as I say…

[Asturias56]

Whoever is in charge its clear that the next "budget" will have to see some serious U turns or some serious cuts

can't see any space for increases in defence spending right now - just hope we get away without more "deferrals" and cuts

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin

What - precisely - do we need them to patrol and against what threat?

I would suggest there are some oil and gas facilities in the North Sea that could do with some patrolling right about now.

Whoever is in charge its clear that the next "budget" will have to see some serious U turns or some serious cuts.

Just like the last one then, and the one before that...

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

"What - precisely - do we need them to patrol and against what threat?"

Well there's Illegal immigration, fishing, disaster relief and drugs enforcement and it might be nice to have a force big enough that we don't have to use RFA's and tankers to handle such issues .

Illegal immigration and fishery patrol are properly constabulary tasks - for which we have a Border Force - although DEFRA/MAFF/(inert current name here) has contracted out fishery patrol to the RN. It's not as if we need more there in any case, not least because the illegal immigration bit ends up being a taxi service, rather than preventative.

Disaster relief doesn't usually occur in the UK (unless you count Yorkshire). We have a patrol ship based in the Caribbean for distex and DEO. Trouble with patrol vessels is that they tend to be small and most importantly have a limited complement, which funnily enough limits what they can actually provide. Which is why in hurricane season (like what it is now) we tend to have a larger ship (often known as an RFA tanker) on station to help out. You seem to be suggesting that we should have a dedicated disaster relief ship purely for that. Or are you suggesting that we have load of patrol vessels to do "stuff"?

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by melmothtw

I would suggest there are some oil and gas facilities in the North Sea that could do with some patrolling right about now.

You don't counter that threat with a patrol boat.

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin

You don't counter that threat with a patrol boat.

You don't know what that threat is, so how do you know??

[Asturias56]

The question is will any funds be available for more Typhoons, more Poseidons , more of the PBI, more ammunition?

I doubt it

But lets just hope we don't see the usual "cuts must be spread across different departments" mantra.

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by melmothtw

You don't know what that threat is, so how do you know??

If its the sort of conventional threat that we've considered for some decades, you still don't use a patrol boat.

If it's the sort of threat that appears to have been used in the Baltic - and indeed is often referenced wrt subsea cables, you don't stop that with a patrol boat either.

[MPN11]

With the Pound tanking, I suggest even the new uniforms are on the back burner, let alone anything associated with war-fighting that isn't already contracted.