SDSR 2016?
 

Having a major defence review in the synch and just before an election is not a good idea. Would a delay to 2016 be a good idea.

I am sure the can kickers would love the idea?

The General Election will take place on 15 May 2015, the SDSR will likely report after the vote sometime in October if the last one is anything to go by.
TBH the great British public won't give a monkey's after Afghan is officially finished and the size of the services now makes them an irrelevance amongst the electorate and to the political class as a whole


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

8% savings to be made is the rumour :eek:

...and in other news, the senior civil servant overseeing the SDSR 15 has now jumped ship.

Given the ongoing assault upon the British armed forces at the hands of a bunch of political scum (lib-lab-con) got me thinking about a book that was loaned to me a couple of years ago. The book was certainly food for thought two-ish years ago and has had me pondering since.
The book was called "How To Stage A Military Coup" and was written by David Hebditch and Ken Conner (the second gentleman was I believe one of the longest serving members of the SAS).
The book was a fascinating and, in many places rather droll look at a subject that has affected many countries (almost including France at one point) the knock-on effect of which has rebounded around the world.
But the really intriguing part comes at the beginning of each chapter and lasts maybe 2/3 pages in each case. This is a look at a fictitious coup carried out right here in the UK in the more or less, here and now.
It made me think that if the forces, and thus ultimately the nation, face oblivion, then all the old rules become null and void. Even the question of legality becomes ambiguous under such extreme provocation. The armed forces swearing allegiance to Her Majesty not a bunch of political rent-boys infecting Whitehall and Westminster (what power still remaining there having not yet been surrendered to the so-called EU).
Since Her Majesty (in the book scenario) continues in her position. The oath of allegiance is unbroken (OK, the lawyers would have a field day on this one) But who questions the victor?
The book is available on Amazon.

Stendec5

"..who questions the victor?"

I question your sanity, that or you are an eight year old!

What "ongoing assault upon the British Armed forces?" One of the largest defence budgets on the face of the planet with some of the most sophisticated and complex weapon systems in existence in the face of an enormous budget deficit and no military threat whatsoever. What kind of "assault" is that?

A military coup? There is only one definite outcome of a military coup and that is that you will have committed treason. You will be a traitor.

Why on earth would anybody in this country want to be run by the military? They can't even run themselves!

Oh, and by the way, the "so called EU" actually is the EU.

Some people...

Wahhay pr00ne's back

Err, this one?

Or this one?

Or even this one from PPRuNe

Even this from your favourite newspaper
:rolleyes:

Roland,

Those aren't "assaults," they are merely downsizing, as decreed by the uniformed Top Brass, and why not in this day and age, after all, why do you NEED an Army any larger than 82,000 regulars and 38,000 reservists, more than 7 or 8 fast jet squadrons and 30 odd major warships, what would they all do?

We have a military that will be adequate for our needs, which is currently invading Middle Eastern countries and right royally fcuking them over.

If we only needed UK home defence, then something between Eire and Austria would do.

The Observer is my favourite paper...

If he's an eight year old, could he please tell me what school he's attending? I'd like to send my son there, he has a good English teacher.

Have you not been following the news recently?

We can all debate about whether Ukraine is really our place to get involved in, but what about Estonia?...a NATO member and as of today, also a country black listed in the club of nations oppressing Russian minorities; there is only one other member of that club so far, can you guess which one?

Bastardeux,

Why does what is happening in the Crimea affect the size of the UK armed forces? You planning on invading Russia? Cos if you are the ONLY military that you will need will be the Trident SSBN fleet.

That's the best bit of spin I've seen in ages:D you are Alistair Campbell and I claim my £5. The figure was never set by the "uniformed Top Brass" they were set by a civil servant, without consultation with the Top Brass.

We haven't got 38000 reservists, and I have yet to meet any army officer who thinks that 38000 reservists, even non-deployable ones, is anywhere near viable :rolleyes:

Where on Earth have you got that idea from?

I'm saying we have a commitment to NATO and our wider European defence, which the United States is, quite rightly, getting fed up of providing for us because we would prefer to spend our money on social behemoths.

Russia clearly doesn't respond to soft power and our hard power bluster is completely unsubstantiated because we simply do not have the assets to back it up...one of their ships sat off the coast of Lossie, for a couple of days, before we could do anything about it, FFS.

We have a resurgent Russia that is willing to bully Europe into doing what it wants. The West has done as near to nothing as makes no difference to punish or deter it from invading Crimea or Eastern Ukraine. So what next in the mind of Putin? Moldova? Estonia? Any other former Soviet states?

I can only assume that you are not serving, otherwise you would be all too aware of the fact that there is a gulf between government rhetoric and what we are actually able to achieve these days.

The fourth largest defence budget in the world - if you believe the politicians, but one that is rapidly heading towards hollow force status thanks to whatever combination of poor contracts, excessive costs, political meddling and senior officer incompetence. Seems a fairly successful assault to most people still serving. Oh and not my words, but borrowed from a former CAS I had dinner with last week who, despite his retired status, remains as sharp as a tack and is equally concerned about the current state of things.

Interesting take on the concept of a coup there. I mean, it's not as if the west has jumped on the bandwagon in recent weeks to champion the overthrow of a democratically elected President. So, hypothetically, what would the difference between the Ukraine and the UK be if the next government tied is closer to Europe against the wishes of the public, and the public forced that government out without another election? A revolution, a coup? Call it what you will, there would be outrage at the subversion of the democratic process, but that's what we are all championing in Ukraine at the moment.

And there in lies the nub of the problem. Due to political grand standing and the ready acceptance of the concept of being a force for good, we need to be capable of more than home defence, so what we have isn't really adequate at all if you want to talk about force maintenance and sustainability as well as generation.

I will give you that one though :ok:

Are the non-deplorable ones those who use a knife and fork when eating sandwiches in the mess?:confused:

I guess so. Thanks Archimedes.Bloody predictive text!!

As an aside, if there was a military coup, supported by the majority of the electorate and "we" kept HMQ as Head of State, would we be traitors and have committed Treason? Isn't treason the act of betraying one's country and/or plotting or attempting to overthrow the Sovereign?

I think the Treasury needs a lesson in percentages, re savings

8% of the F-all that's left, is F-all

You know there's a difference between adequate and over stretched.

Leon,

8% savings!!

No need to name your snitch in MB but please tell us more?

How is William Hague going to go into the NATO summit trying to convince European countries to increase their defence budgets, if we continue to cut ours!?

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/0...0MG5HA20140319

Ironic (or perhaps sad would be a better word) that most of you are going after pr00ne because of his political beliefs rather than the infantile rant by stendec5, which caused pr00ne to post.

@pr00ne. I suspect you and I have different views on many things but on this you are 100% correct...

Any member of society (military of otherwise) that does not get that is at best a misguided fool and at worst a criminal. We live in a democracy...anybody want to live in a dictatorship or totalitarian regime, there's plenty to chose from and most of them would be glad to have you aboard.

I don't know where the question about coups being anything other than treason comes from, but TOFO and pr00ne have more than adequately covered it off.

On SDSR: post yesterday's budget, two posts are firmly in the ground. One, that under Osborne, state spending over the medium term will fall to 38% of GDP or so, the lowest since the 1940s. Martin Wolff in the FT is good on this this morning. With an ageing population and ever increasing cost of new healthcare treatments, this translates into much tighter budgets for everything else.

Or not quite everything else: Osborne committed himself to maintaining the overseas aid budget at 0.7% of GDP, despite the fact that there is no evidence behind this number. This will, however the budget gets divided up, impact on the amount that MoD will get. I expect to see some push back on it from the thinktanks, but unless there's a major row, it won't change.

S41

Rationed NHs provision for those older than normal pension age would solve the deficit in an instant. It's pretty much what NICE are up to anyhow.

Nothing solves an economic problem in an instant old chap. Usually because every action has a reaction...intended or otherwise.

Caring for the elderly - Western style - is expensive, however you do it.

A more acceptable first step would be to rationalise the "postcode lottery". For example;

My very elderly mother receives injections every month for macular degeneration. The "lottery" means she must pay £50 a time to get to the hospital and back, 40 miles away. Frankly ludicrous for someone on their own and essentially blind.

If she lived here, the NHS would send a taxi, but not pay for the injections.

Which to standardise across the country? That is the question for politicians and what they're paid for. But both "savings" are deemed broadly acceptable by politicians of the same colour. It would certainly raise the profile of the gross waste in public services, and perhaps persuade Parliament to consider outlawing deliberate waste in MoD. That waste, and the certain knowledge most of it can be avoided, is what makes the Treasury right when seeking to cut our budget. Trouble is, they don't apply the same rules to the NHS, so their waste is even worse.

ppOOne. I would suggest that you get your head out of your, doubtless ample, posteria, and actually READ the post again. You sound like a typically odious system puppet.
The British Armed forces are shrinking to the point where they are becoming unable to do their job. Too few of everything, and yet more cuts to come. This threatens the very existence of this nation should a serious crisis blow up (as history shows they often do). I suggest that YOU, not I, fit the bill of "traitor" (is that what you called me?) only you're probably too dumb to see it.
I love my country and it breaks my heart to see what you're apparent friends have done/continue to do to it.
As I said, if you actually read the post instead of ranting like a political broadcast by the B/S Party, you would see that I didn't advocate a coup as such, but was simply commenting on a book that was loaned to me which, in MY opinion (remember the "democracy" you seemed so keen to defend?) has some highly intriguing ideas.
No doubt you like to burn such books.

Stendec5,

Nothing ample about my 'posterior' thank you, but I'll thank you to mind your own goddamned business.

An 'odious system puppet?' If only you knew...

The British armed forces are NOT shrinking to the point at which they are becoming unable to do their job just because you say they are. As they are currently only deployed in one theatre to the tune of 4,000 personnel until the end of this year I hardly see that we have 'too few of everything.' WHAT do you want more military kit for?

As to threatening the very existence of this nation, how? That is total BS and you know it.

I said that anyone proposing treason is in my opinion a traitor.

How do you know who my 'apparent' friends are? How on earth do you know what my friends have done to this country? I see nothing wrong with this country and am not aware of any of my friends ruining it in any way.

I certainly do not like to burn books, as a Barrister I rather rely on them.

Bye.

Pr00ne said 'WHAT do you want more military kit for?'

Speaking as a UK citizen, I would like a long range Maritime Patrol Aircraft please.

The UK currently has nothing to provide fast, agile and semi-permanent long range ASW defence of our SSBN and new carriers which in my mind means an unacceptable risk to both the Strategic Deterrent and our nations aims of having a serious strike capability launched from the maritime environment.

I would like our country to have the ASuW ability to detect, identify and if necessary destroy threats to our interests coming from both blue water and the littoral in an acceptable time frame. I ask myself, just how would we cope with a 2nd Falklands invasion launched by Argentina?

I would like the ability for Defence to be able to support OGD's against a maritime terrorist threat to our island as well as bolstering the meagre assets of the Border Force Agency.

Finally, as a tertiary role, I would like to see the UK having the ability to offer SAR cover within our internationally obligated SAR region which extends out to 30 West as well as being able to provide the best possible service to those in need in a 'Piper Alpha' scenario.

I personnaly find it appaling that as an island race with international maritime obligations and 90% of our trade transported on the ocean, we do not have this capability. Events in the Southern Ocean merely add to my anger.

Does that answer your question?

As a Barrister you undoubtedly realise that your point hinges upon a contention that armed forces should be scaled according only to the needs of current operations. This would be quite a novel approach to defence policy and it is mischievous of you to use it as a basis upon which to attack other views without first offering it for debate. In the absence of other learned friends I think you were rather hoping that your straw man would be accepted, aided by a bit of lawyerly swagger in the incorrect capitalisation of your profession. It would behove you well to use your intellectual horsepower to contribute to the policy debate instead of using it to take cheap shots at others; from your lofty perch you appear to disregard the notion that there might be members of lower-case professions capable of engaging on your intellectual level.

As a barrister, surely you should realise that making unsubstantiated assertions doesn't make them into facts either. You need to do a bit more Googling to check up on your facts.

Nor does you saying otherwise make it anymore true! The British Armed Forces certainly can't do long range maritime patrol any more; in a year or two they may not be able to do significant elements of battlefield recce, nor the comms fleet task, and any number of other tasks/roles. I would say that is shrinking to the point that they are unable to do their job.

We seem to go round this buoy on a fairly regular basis. Those advocating the need for additional equipment and/or manpower often present logical and informed argument (Party Animal for example). However, if the UK were to procure such items then there is a simple choice:

a. Allocate more money for Defence, or

b. Reduce/delete an alternative capability

The reality is Joe Public is not clamoring for more money to be spent on Defence. Indeed, if anything, his expectation seems to be for less. The politician class are very good at reading the pulse of the Nation, as (with a few notable exceptions in history) they tend to follow public opinion, rather than shape it.

So that leave us with option B. SDSR15 is likely to play out with intense debate over the merits of our existing and planned ORBAT, so perhaps it would be useful for those posting who believe we should have more of X, to explain why they also think we should have less of Y.

Red Line,

You're correct in your statement that, to put it very bluntly, funding is dependent on political expediency and the desire to either be a 'force for good' or the desire to reduce the number of body bags coming home. Once we have achieved the former, the latter will be the inevitable corollary.

However, the desire for politicians to appear statesman-like will never diminish, and so the military will be deployed at every opportunity to support that aim. Buy with that responsibility must come resources. If there is little to no appetite to resource the military - all arms and services - so that it is capable of being that contingency force, then you need to add a third option to your list: do less.

Ever since the politicians have tried to run the military like a business, they have focused on the numbers and the bottom line. I accept that we, like all Depts should live within our means if we are to be a sustainable force, but maybe those means need to consider factors in addition to numbers on a spreadsheet such as the human element. You can have all the exquisite capabilities you want, but they will be ineffective unless they are appropriately manned.

Our bottom line is not found on a spreadsheet, it is our ability to generate operational capability and most importantly, to ensure that the same numbers of people and aircraft/ships/tanks come home as deploy. Only when that happens do the books balance in my eyes.

To hold a military as a contingent force, with large parts of it being held at readiness with an expectation that they can deploy and execute political direction at the drop of a hat is expensive. It requires a significant investment in training, logistics and human capital if you are not to burn through your people in one or 2 turns of the handle i.e. for it to be a sustainable capability. Those advocating a purely spreadsheet driven approach would do well to remember this in these uncertain times. After all, if you ask your household insurance company for a policy that covers a limited range of risks for a short period, you will then no doubt be surprised when the premium sky rockets when you change the policy to cover all risks and eventualities 24/7.

The politicians need to decide what policy they want and as well as being directed by public opinion must also inform it so that the masses actually understand the repercussions of their wishes. With regard to Defence, I'm sad to say they are not doing that very well at all, probably because there are now no votes in it and those body bags are thankfully getting fewer in number.

I would say the problem is that SDRs or whatever the latest phrase is do not actually address the main problem; they are simply cost cutting exercises. Politicians of all colours have failed to match the 2 up. At one end of the scale we could adopt a defence policy akin to say Sweden or Switzerland or at the other we could get involved as the world's policemen. Unfortunately governments of all colours want the cost of the former with the influence of the other. It would of course help if we had a half decent procurement system.

I take your point Melchett, but the politicians decide how much they are prepared to pay for the insurance policy. When crises occur, then will then call the insurance company (the Military) and ask what can be done. Based on their premiums, the insurance company will explain the possible options from which the politicians choose.

You might think they will regret this in future, but the fact is that at the moment, the politicians are not prepared to pay more for their insurance policy.

Whether one likes it or not, our innate ability to deploy operational capability IS determined by the spreadsheet. It is naive to think otherwise.

BTW, a trip overseas that can "ensure that the same numbers of people and aircraft/ships/tanks come home as deploy" is called a Holiday, it's certainly not called an Operation.

Yes, this is currently what happens, but unfortunately the insurance company in question has 3 divisions who are each competing for business from the other and are prepared to make unsustainable short-term offers in the hope of obtaining longer-term business for their division. So instead of the customer begging the insurance company for a payout, we have the unusual situation of the 3 parts of the insurance company begging the customer to accept their payout. No wonder the customer doesn't want to pay any more when he seems to be getting a gold-plated service.

Unfortunately the customer needs to be more intelligent in all this because the internal politics at his insurer doesn't actually result in an increased level of protection; it just fools him into thinking that he's getting what he wants. This has been the classic way of driving down the insurance premium (defence budget) but the quality of cover inevitably suffers.

I note that since the much-vaunted CSR the 3 single-service heads have maintained full staffs in Main Building and, at least in CAS' case, seem to spend more time there than they do at their Command HQs. To that extent, I'm not sure that the CSR is achieving its desired endstate of restricting the political-military interface to the CDS-Ops Dir-PJHQ axis...

"politicians decide how much they are prepared to pay"

And in 2010 they decided we could not afford fixed wing carrier aircraft for a decade and any LRMPA after having "wasted" funds on Nimrod.

We still have a large Defence Budget but unlike the case with say NHS spending, throwing money at something was deemed not to be the answer. That's the simple politics.

Post 2015 matters will not improve. Personally, I doubt we will run on Tornado once Typhoon is cleared to carry Storm Shadow. As for ditching early Tranche Typhoons, you can imagine the reaction from the Public to another waste of money. Much easier to get rid of another "old" type altogether as has often happened in the past few years.

Party Animal,

You of course are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and what you would like to see in the UK military, unfortunately when it comes to long range Maritime Patrol Aircraft, it would appear that the top brass in both the RAF and the RN disagree with you.
If they did agree with you, then I’m pretty sure that, out of the £63 billion allotted to defence purchases over the next 10 yrs ,plus another £13 billion for contingency purchases, they would have found the money!

I would imagine that we would cope a lot better this time around with an Argentine invasion (unlikely as that is) of the Falkands than we did in 1982!

As to you finding it personally appalling as regards our 90% of maritime trade, seeing as that comes in 100% foreign ships mainly owned and crewed by foreigners then I don’t see that the lack of a LRMPA increases our vulnerability one jot.

Easy Street,


Sorry if you think my points ‘cheap shots.’ I personally think that a Barrister possesses as much intellect as your average Taxi driver, and believe me I have NO beef against Taxi drivers!
Believe me when I say that I do not consider myself to inhabit any lofty perch.

As to scaling the armed forces according to the needs of current operations, where on earth did I suggest that? Less than 15% of the UK armed forces were deployed to Afghanistan and we have myriad capabilities and platforms that have not been deployed for a very long time, I am NOT suggesting that they be retired.


Roland Pulfrew,


You make a fair point re the 4,000. That was sloppy of me and of course does not take into account the other small scatterings in the Falklands, the Gulf, Kosovo and sundry other places. however, my main point remains, that we have only one significant combat deployment, of 4,000, and that comes to an end this year.

I still maintain that the UK armed forces CAN do their job, and seeing as we possess the 4th largest defence budget on the face of the planet, so they bloody well should! Is that money well spent? Is it well managed and husbanded? No, I don’t think it is but that is NO reason to spend more!

Pr00ne

A great final paragraph that encapsulates the argument perfectly.

It was implicit in your reply to Stendec5, viz:

because the number deployed on current ops is a relevant fact to introduce only if you think there should be a material connection from that to the overall size of the forces. If you agree that the size of our forces should be independent of the needs of current ops, then the number deployed is absolutely irrelevant.

Your later point - 4th-biggest defence budget, why spend more? - is one I agree with entirely, although I'd be interested to see whether other nations' nuclear deterrents sit on the headline defence budget. We and the French are also in hock to our own domestic defence monopolies who sell to us late and over budget, while militaries such as India, Saudi etc (and even, it seems, Russia - French ships) buy from the same companies at preferable terms due to the power of the export market. They have varying views on the value of attached to a life, so tend to have less of a safety, assurance and process overhead. And they're not all as fussed as Sir Humphrey about accounting for every last penny of government money, so can survive with small procurement and accounting arms. That's the way our money goes....

It is ironic that the most wasteful programme (RMPA/Nimrod 2000/Nimrod MRA4) failed because it did NOT adhere to “safety, assurance and process”.



If, in the early 90s, those responsible for oversight had adhered to Sir Humphrey’s regulations (in this case, those issued by PUS as Chief Accounting Officer), then it would indeed have been a “replacement”, instead of a modification of Nimrod.


Same applies to another money pit, Chinook HC Mk3.


Then look at the common denominators. THAT is where the problem lies.


It has been proven time and again how to deliver to time, cost and performance. It isn’t that MoD can’t do it. It is because they fear raising the bar so rail against those who do.