"Root & Branch review of defence spending announced"
 

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Ministers to start defence review

Hardly likely to result in more money, though, is it?

I imagine it will tell us we face 'unprecedented challenges' in a 'rapidly changing world' where we 'must be ready for a wide range of threats' while ensuring our 'troops are well-equipped to do the job we ask of them'.

It will cost money to produce, but ultimately produce no more money.

la fumée et des miroirs, comme d'habitude

cuts....


.

It wouldn't surprise me if they really decimated the Armed Forces. They won't be looking at the long term but what's best for them now. After all the Labour government will have one eye on the general election and will be looking to find the money to 'bribe' the voters.

Dear Gordon,
Please recover the costs paid out to the errant banks, by whatever means necessary, as I don't want the IMF to downgrade our debt to junk-bond status.
Love
The Treasury

So, rather than ditch the noose around our neck which is the NHS, we should forgoe our national security and give in to the mamby-pamby left social reform brigade and drive the state into the abyss.

Left, Right, or somewhere in between, they'll all do the same - all they're interested in is votes! Sod the country, sod the state they've got us into, sod the guys who are fighting in their name with inadequate support.

So.........those doom-mongers out there - you'd rather stagger along as we are? Last full formal review was 1998 wasn't it?
11 years on and you don't think the sensible thing, whatever the outcome, is to have a formal review? At least there might be some discussion and decision on the subject.

Ahh nostalgia! I remember the last one well, the results of which were just coming out as I finished my training on the E3 OCU. SDR held such a lot of promise coming after the Torys Peace Dividend, Options for change and Front Line First, such wonderful romantic names!

I am sure this one will be different!

:\

Why single out Defence?
 

There needs to be a comprehensive spending review across the WHOLE of the big spending departments. Notably Health, Education, Social Security and to include Police and not just Defence.

Gone are the days when Defence was once "fat". It is now very lean indeed and there are not easily identifiable bases to close.....RAFG is gone, Hong Kong went 20 years ago, there is an endless list of stations that have closed or earmarked for closure. Whats left? Where next?

Things are serious. Cut any more and the "patient" won't take it. Particularly when the operational commitments that this government got us into aren't going to go away anytime soon.:ugh:

2.5% of GDP is miserly as it is and anything less will make having the armed forces pointless, except perhaps for the odd ceremonial occasion or as a "token" force.

MB

To be seriously simplistic about this:-

1. The Government needs to tell the military what their tasks and roles are; do we have anyone in the Governement who even knows this or can decide?

2. The military need to tell the Government what equipment and manpower they need to perform these tasks and roles.

3. The Government must provide the funding for all aspects of these or accept that the job cannot be done, in full.

A2QFI

Sadly we already have bullet 1 (Defence Strategic Guidance) and bullet 2 (Defence Programme Directory (IIRC!)). What we don't have is anyone who is willing to stand up and state the latter part of bullet 3! We are, at times, our own worst enemy with our can do attitude. The other problem we have is that the military staff are heavily involved in "socialising" DSG and tend to protect single service issues at all costs! You are right when you suggest there is no 'independant' body who could produce such guidance.

I also fear this will be little more than a sticking plaster approach - with approx 12 months to when the election must happen little will be done that will affect UK plc jobs so there will be no huge changes to Typhoon / Carriers (and therefore JCA) etc. Furthermore, you get to the point when you can't make any financial decisions (in either direction) in public service so as not to sway (bribe) opinion in marginal seats (I'm sure someone more intelligent will remind me of the proper words for this!).

Their only way forward , IMHO, is to reduce commitments in terms of size, concurrency and projected length of operation. Not the place to discuss in depth here but perhaps the current op plus some home commitments may be it for the foreseeable future. Would mean operating very much 'hand to mouth' with no contingent capability whilst AFG is still ongoing. From an RAF perspective that would make the future very bleak for JFH and GR4 (despite being on ops). In terms of equipment purchases - if it isn't needed right know it goes onto the back burner. You could even squeeze harmony even further to reduce headcount (particularly if you were to reduce harmony from x days away in period y to x days away in half of y [which for some of you would be little more than a reality measure]!). And there's no money for redundancies so the only choice there is to make life so unpleasant people leave ....

Would this be sensible? Of course it wouldn't but there is no other choice. When you think the annual defence budget is spent before it is received it will need to be something quite radical to fix it. We have been backed into the corner through years of not balancing the books and putting off what needed to be paid for today until tomorrow. Savings measures such as cutting flying pay / removing CEA / disbanding the Reds and BBMF / making London based staff live in a tented city in the grounds of Uxbridge etc won't even cover a few months (defence) inflation on the equipment programme.

As for the other state departments - both health and education are 'bailed' out by those who opt out of the public systems available and go private. Any changes to those two areas in particular would need to be similarly radical and swift in coming. And that just ain't going to happen, regardless of the colour of the party.

Now a 10-15pence rise, across the board, on Income Tax. Now that might offer up some new money.;)

...for the NHS.

When will they realise that you can't stop people dieing?

Damn tool makers are taking over the world..... :ooh:

A recent aerospace article quoted someone saying that 2.5% GDP for Defence was higher than most countries which sat at 1.5%. the question was, is the 1% worth it? I.e do we need to fund to 2.5% if we don't have to be a world power . not my thoughts by the way, just commenting on the article. RAeS magazine for June.

..... that'll be a job for Gordon then... :}

Defence review - hardly news for anyone on here with half a brain!

So we haven't had one for over 10 years; SDR put us in the post cold war posture of expeditionary warfare, the New Chapter expanded on that for a post 9/11 world outlook. The big question: what has changed?

Simple, the Govt doesn't want to fund or resource us for the Defence policy it signed up to even after the so called peace dividend.

Ok so we look at it again and the driver is we need to make massive savings in the budget, we can work out what the new policy is later.

Once upon a time, many years ago, I was always led to believe the first duty of any Government was Defence of the Realm. Sadly, that is no longer the case and, if you think Auntie Beeb feels the nation's pulse, the public care very little about that priority. On this evening's News, the announcement of the review was placed pretty much at the end of the bulletin sandwiched between the demise of a minor coffee chain and the cricket. I'm sorry chaps, thats what we mean to the public now. Or maybe the Beeb doesn't reflect society?

On the day that a Labour govt announced an all encompassing review with everything up for negotiation, viewers to BBC Scotland would have seen Quentin Davies (Labour Defence minister) at the carrier steel cutting ceremony make two very interesting statements:

a. that we need the carriers and ordering just one would be plain stupid in case it was needed when it was in refit! (Duh!)

and

b. we can't afford to have any holidays in our (military) capabilities.

So, can someone with a degree in political double speak, explain what that all means?

Once upon a time, the concept of Defence and the nation's security was a given and above the cynicism of party politics - sad that times have changed and I have spent much of my adult life defending the right of politicians to play games with that security.

I too was around for 'Frontline First' and 'Options For Change' and have certainly not seen anything from the 'peace dividend afforded by the Warsaw Pact' - infact the exact opposite.

My 3 comments are that lets unite together and through the chain of command ensure that the H M Treasury, quangos, mandarins and spin doctors all fully understand during the review of exactly where the UK military is with people, equipment, committments - and where it is forecast to be for the next 5-10 years.

Now is most certainly not the time for senior officer single service bitching and land grabs as H M Treasury would be rubbing their hands with glee. However a truly Joint united senior officer delegation giving the harsh and very stark facts, figures and prognosis would be impossible for any politician to ignore unless we are truly destined to withdraw in an islotionist policy as a British Defence Force.

Secondly, the timings for this review is what makes it farcical. A 'Green Paper' by the end of the year and formal White Paper after the next election - so any meaningful decision has been put off and delayed until at least Autumn 10, with the consequences of that eventual decision many months/ years later.

In my own myiopic world of Support Helicopters FMH/FCR decision delayed again I expect with the Defence Review given as the excuse this time. Lets say that the Carriers are binned or Typhoon mothballed with JFH/GR4 fleet or Trident rejected - as every second of every day of delayed decision millions are wasted as people beaver away. In the case of helicopters I would argue (as per the NAO report in 2003) that there is a risk to ground forces if more helicopters are not procured. Even a decision now would take a couple of years to get to the frontline (look at the Danish Merlin example).

But I am not partisan, just using my comfort zone to highlight and show that MoD and H M Govt are in a state of 'paralysis by analysis'. As I have said before, I do not care about the decision (i.e. UK military either are a UN Security Council 'world player' or an Aussie style Defence Force) - but the decisions are long long overdue.

My 3rd point is that the post above regarding a 'root and branch' review of all Govt departments is spot on and the inefficiency of the NHS, Education, Immigration, Work and Pensions should all be conducted and our senior officers have a duty that they are not viewed as 'easy targets' or 'quick wins' for H M Treasury to save money and try and win votes but I have trust in their moral courage.

Most Health care professionals recognise this. Its the Administrators who see it as messing up their patient outcome stats.
Would Agree there is loads of savings to be made in the NHS but the Frontline services are already making them to pay of the useless mouths.

And the Pen pushers will defend thier jobs to the last Doctor or Nurse

Maroonman4. I would totally agree with your comments no one is going to commit to a major spending project with the review in progress so money will sit around to be returned and lost to the treasury. In the mean time morale will be effected as servicemen/women feel their jobs/prospects under threat.

Earlier this evening I heard Liam Fox give the conventional justification for the UK's retention of nuclear weapons, with a cogent repudiation of any unilateral removal of the nuclear capability.

It was a viewpoint that echoes my own.

He then said that this meant that we had to recapitalise the nuclear submarine force.

Hold up, I thought. That seems like a non sequitur.

I'm aware of the supposed 'studies' undertaken before the decision was taken to replace Trident with another SLBM, but I'm still not convinced that this level of strategic system is the only way, the best way, or an affordable way.

I don't mean that I support the only air launched option studied (two squadrons of A330 sized launch platforms) at the time. I don't.

But I do ask why SLBM?

Why not simple warheads that could be strapped on the front of Tomahawk/Storm Shadow and even freefall weapons that might be stuffed into the weapons bays of a JSF? Or to the front of a hypersonic stand off weapon like Boeing's HyFly when such a thing eventually becomes available?

A cheap and cheerful deterrent, in other words?

A deterrent that would be genuinely autonomous and under national command and control, and not tied into the USA's strategic nuclear forces like Polaris and Trident were.

Do we really still need to wipe Moscow off the map, all on our own-some? (And after Rust, do we still believe that only a SLBM could achieve that?)

Is an SLBM the only way of hitting North Korea - or even the best way?

Given that we need nukes, what do we need them for, and what's the cheapest and most cost effective nuclear capability we can get away with?