More cuts coming?
 

Does this mean there will be further cuts in the Defence spending in the next two years?

BBC News - George Osborne plans new spending cuts 'to fund schools'

There is no mention of Defence being "protected from the latest squeeze", so one can only presume that it isn't.

Indeed, why should it be?

Splendid fishing expedition - "Indeed, why should it be?"

Taking things right back to basics, if you found a nation, the first thing you have to do is defend it. Everything else is built from there. Education, health, pensions, social services, none of this is of any priority if your nation is under attack. The UK has been under attack from terrorism for pretty much the whole of the last 45 years. Not to mention war with Argentina and colonial disputes (e.g. Sierra Leone).

Then there's the small matter of large numbers of British expats influencing the world's industries in places that might become a tad warm. Of course they could all be warned off and brought home, but then the world influence diminishes, and the UK comes under political attack.

Despite all of this, if one still believes there is no threat to the UK or its interests that require a robust military capability, then by all means cut defence spending. Again.

How's that for a bite?

Pretty good. So you've told us (quite correctly) how it should be, now how about how it's going to be. Don't confuse logical argument with probable outcome around here!

Ah, but I am one of the expats. "Not my problem, Guv'nor".

My biggest problem is the Fiscal Cliff political abortion. The very definition of dick-waving brinkmanship.

I'm afraid you'll have to sort your own bag of ****e out, ours is overflowing.

Apparently not, according to the Telegraph:

Even if they wanted to make further cuts, I just don't know where they would be able to find them. We are now less than one brick deep across many areas of my current unit and are struggling to meet core tasking let alone do anything fancy or above and beyond. I suspect that isn't unusual taking a broader view.

Actually I wasn't fishing, but believe what you want..

I made an observation, based on a news article that mentioned certain specific exemptions to budget cuts, but made no reference to Defence. I then asked a question based on that observation.

My last question was almost an afterthougt, a throwaway line. Why should military be exempt cuts being made (generally) across the board. Funding on the military could be seen to be a form of insurance policy, and people generally have the level of insurance they feel they can afford, and go for the cheapest cover possible - who doesn't try to get a cheaper car insurance policy when it comes around to renewal time...

If you consider that comment "fishing", that is your choice, not mine!

When we are out of Afganistan and Germany there is going to be an awful lot of Army kicking around the UK........ easy target for cuts.

Sadly, there is also going to be the perception that there is a lot of RAF kicking around the UK. And with not much left of the Navy to "sell off" it isn't going to be pretty.

Here is a plan.

E3D - scrap ac and send crews to NATO to fly the E3s they do not need.
SENTINEL - scrap as planned.
REAPER - UOR - scrap.
RJ - cancel.
SHADOW - UOR - scrap.

Close the ISTAR hub.

Savings will be considerable.

As will the embarrassment factor for HMG

This looks like another plan:

British Army's fleet of Apache helicopters 'could be scrapped'

But anyway, what you've really got to watch out for is tomorrow's mini budget:

Autumn Statement: public-sector workers earning £30,000 face tax on pensions

Confused, thought we had the "best" Apaches?

Phoney Tony,

I can't quite decide whether you posted that with your tongue firmly in your cheek or whether you are serious. The RAF has a long and proud history of intelligence collection capabilities that have served us well at both the strategic and tactical levels, stretching back to the post-war period moving right the way up to current day. What you suggest would kill that capability overnight - and bearing in mind that recent ops have shown that we no longer do airpower for the sake of airpower i.e. we are usually a supporting force, I'm fairly sure that many of our 'customers' would have something to say about it.

That said, it's such a ridiculous suggestion, that it might just be a seriously considered option by some of the politicians out on the lunatic fringe.

Glad Rag ... we do / did - after the Americans of course. But the US are stopping supporting the D model which we have and are going on to the E model. This is really a non-story but the sensationalist headlines have whipped up a frenzy. Given that the UK has limited organic capabilties to support AND develop the Apache moving forward, there are 3 options. 1. we can either keep the Ds going at best endeavours until they become irrelevant and dangerous on the battlefield through their non-compatability (certainly not overnight); 2. we can develop our own industrial base to try and upgrade over the years (I suggest would be complex) or 3. we can just upgrade to the newer E model.

Given our prowess at attempting to upgrade our own Chinooks, I suggest buying the next model will be cheaper and quicker in the long run.

from an Army standpoint, the pointy bits of the RAF could go - keep the lift, mobility and ISTAR, and we'll use Artillery to make up for the lack of Paveway or Brimstone...

when was that last - non-friendly - RAF air to air kill again...?

sadly of course, Sandy Parts is correct, future directorships at BAES/LM et al focus the mind of senior crabs, and sod effect.

Bloke down the pub told me formation of Typhoons or JCA could do all the ISTAR stuff so no need for heavies.

Glad my current ward has padded walls to keep me safe!

You may just have a point there Sandy Parts!

But one other aspect that didn't occur to me last night was that not only might our 'customers' complain, I can see our allies also complaining. I think we acknowledge that we will never be able to provide mass kinetic effect, but we are right up there when it comes to providing niche capabilities e.g. ISTAR and AAR. If the US wants to start looking west more than east and expects NATO's European contingent to start doing more on its own doorstep, then I think RAF ISTAR will be a critical capability.

Phoney Tony,

What planet are you on??!!

Seriously!

Have you any idea of Reaper/Shadow operating costs vs Typhoon/JCA?

Have you any idea of RJ capability vs Typhoon/JCA?

And thats just starting with the very basics! Suggest you remain within your padded walls!

PP,

The answer to your questions are:

Earth.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Bloke in the pub told me so it must be right.
Do you know better?

Nurse is coming to take me back to the ward now.

Plum,

have you? Interested to hear your cost per hour analysis for the platorms you mention, and your process for comparing apples to oranges.

Start-up vs steady state costs for each would be helpful.

Melchy, think we (UK) are about to effectively lose the AAR capability for anything more than core requirements. Experience shows that you need more than a couple of AAR assets to achieve flexibility and cope with surge type situations, no matter how over-expensive or shiny your "new" toy tanker is.

OAP