One of the contributors on the Times' comment section has suggested that once he's finished cutting the RAF that there may well be a place for Dalton running the NHS or the Post Office if he can deliver 25% cuts such as this without being prompted....:}:E

I agree totally with the thrust of your point, willantis, but would like to correct your hazy remembrance of events. Andrew Humphrey instituted a Strike Command economy project when he was CinC and pared something like 15% off the Command's operating costs. This was not an economy forced upon him from the Treasury, and he was quite proud, even smug, about what he had achieved. Shortly after becoming CAS, the governmment of the day trimmed 10% (iirc) off the defence budget, and this saving was to be applied across the board. CAS tried to keep from smirking when he informed the then Secretary of State for Defence that the RAF had already made savings of this order. He was not best pleased when he was told that what he had done a year or so previously was history!
:ugh:

Seems as if someone has set up a petition already:

Petition to: stop any further cuts to our armed forces, to do so would be wholly irresponsible and place the security of our nation in danger. | Number10.gov.uk

Defence budget 1999 (before Iraq & Afghanistan) - 3% of GDP

Defence budget 2009 - 2.2% of GDP

'nuff said!

Found it here:

SNP demands pledge over future of RAF airbases - Press & Journal

It's certainly bizarre that the SNP should be complaining about the Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom closing bases in Scotland - they seem to have quite the opposite view about HMNB Clyde! And as for the "defence underspend in Scotland"... exactly how much do they envisage spending on defence in the event of independence?

That's it then... done deal :ok:

Mick Strigg,

"Defence budget 1999 (before Iraq & Afghanistan) - 3% of GDP

Defence budget 2009 - 2.2% of GDP

'nuff said!"

Actually there's a good deal more to say, such as;

GDP 1999- £928bn.

GDP 2009- £1,448Bn. (that's 2.65 Trillion US Dollars at 2008 prices)

Speaks volumes for the rate of inflation and the differences between real term increases and "number increases" Oh dear, the rate of inflation in the defence sector has outstripped the rate of inflation in the public sector by about 300%.

Sorry, what was your point?:ugh:

Pr00ne is basically right; there have been real-terms increases in defence spending since at least 2001 (I don't have the figures in front of me). It is also true that the last time this happened was under Thatcher, but only from about '82 to '85 (RN chums of a certain age will remember how the "pro-forces" Tory government was more than happy to implement the 1981 Nott Review...)

However, defence inflation has been running ahead of inflation for the rest of the economy, and though the arguments vary, it is probably the result of a number of problems - poor programme management, bespoke high technology - but mostly because we're not comparing like with like: of course a Batch 3 Typhoon is going to cost more than an F3 - or even a Batch 1 Typhoon - because it is more capable. (Or at least it bl**dy well should be!! :hmm:)

So if you want more capable equipment, you need to cover inflation in the materials and poor programme management that characterises defence, but also to allow additional cash for the improvements in capability - which is not defence inflation per se, but it does cost more.

Hence, the Govt's position that they have increased defence spending year on year is correct but not strictly relevant in that it may not cover the increased capability, and since the UORs are capped by the Treasury, it is unlikely that they cover the full cost of the on-going operations.

S41

I thought the point was GDP has gone up 55% in 10 years - or around 5% per year.

In the same duration, defence spending has gone up around 15% in 10 years, or around 1.5% per year.

Hence in real terms, defence spend has increased 3.5% behind the growth in GDP - this is surely a cut in real terms, especially as all the costs of equipment & resources are more likely to be linked to GDP growth?

I wonder if deep down and away from the public limelight there is an appreciation by the various politicians, Sir Humphreys and starred officers that they really have screwed Defence up. Or do they still think that all is rosy and if we say that we are more capable than ever often enough, people will believe it regardless of the level of cuts that are inflicted?

Probably more of a hypothetical question but I really would love to get an insight into some of the thought processes that go on at the highest levels. That is assuming they do have thought processes that extend beyond their next promotion, gong or pension incremement. Do you think the thought ever flashes across their minds that they really might have mucked this up, or are they completely oblivious to the realities of life in Defence in the 21st century?

Furthermore, given the press reports earlier this summer about the ratio of civil servants to service personnel, I wonder what that ratio would be if we went down to sub-30k and what sort of public reaction that would generate. And given the expeditionary nature of the RAF that we are constantly being reminded of, and given that you need 5 personnel for every deployable post in order to maintain harmony levels, at what manning level does the RAF cease to be able to maintain its expeditionary capability without breaking individuals or causing a reduction in operational output? Surely it can't be much lower than 30k?!!! Or is that just a stupid question because the 'yes-men' will always make sure that the capability is seen to exist whether or not it actually does?

Melchett

It would be very interesting. Sadly, I doubt we'll ever know.

JFZ90

The 1.5% defence growth figure is a real growth (ie after inflation) whereas the 55% growth in the total economy is nominal (ie before inflation). There has been real growth in defence spending, it's just no been enough to meet our public commitments.

S41

We are truly b*ggered. I really dont think people realise the scale of the cuts that are coming our way once the governments change, across ALL public sectors.

FTAdviser.com - Jupiter issues gilts warnings

In the latest RUSI journal, I see Philip Sabin is advocating that the future deep strike capability be placed in the F35-C which will can be operated of sea or land effectively. We all know its the aircraft that cost the most. It makes sense to have a capability that is truly dual role and state of the art to avoid costly duplication of now unaffordable assets.

Such as two carriers?:E

(Yeh, yeh, I know...):)

Thread OFF

Sorry but this is demonstrably wrong - look at the stats.

DASA list 740 SAROPs by Mil SAR helos in the 3rd quarter of 2009, 59 of which were classed as maritime.

Kind of blows your theory out of the water, doesn't it?

Even if you add in the 238 SAROps by MCA aircraft in the same period, and assume that every MCA SAROp was maritime (which is patently bolleaux), you'd still have less than 300 maritime out of nearly 1000!

More info here if anyone's interested.

http://http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applic...me&tabOption=1

Thread ON

Two points to consider with respect to this "story":

1) Lists of cost saving measures are drawn up at every planning round. It doesn't necessarily mean that all, or indeed any, of them will actually happen.

2) There could be a classic psychological ploy being used here. Come up with a very long list of cuts, and when only a small number are implemented people see it as a "positive", in terms of cuts avoided, rather than as a negative.


Alternatively of course, it could be that the country is broke, and all the armed services are about to suffer massive budget reductions.......:confused:

You might want to see what happened in Canada when the conservative government there cut expenditure by 25% overnight for a vague idea... Question is, which despot regime will take advantage of our under-resourced, burnt out armed forces once we signal we cant even defend our own shores, never mind one far away...