Future cuts? Another 30,000?
 

Not Looking good :(

Defence Cuts Could Put 30,000 Jobs At Risk

This after they said there wouldn't be any more major redundancies and reduced the redundancy packages (especially those on 75/15 pension schemes) massively. Stand by to be made redundant for 3 months pay!

More pain for the Army I expect, the Senior and Junior Services are about as 'skinny' as it gets. I still think there are some effiiciiences to be made:

1. AAC/RNAS aircraft/aircrew to the RAF including eng/log support functions, plus get rid of JHC as there would be no need for it.
2. RAF Regt function to the Army.

Basically, if it floats then it's RN, if it trundles in or on the ground it's Army and if it flies it's RAF. It makes no sense otherwise - why train a gunner in the RAF Regt to do the core work of the Army? Why train small cadres of specialist aircrew and engineers for the RN/Army when there is an efficiency of 'blobbing' them up in the RAF? Almost as mad as the RAF having a marine branch! :}

Standing by for nepotistic incoming!!!

LJ

Anyone else see a UK defence Force inbound?

Will somebody cleverer than me please tell me where irreducible minimum is and just when this constant insanity is likely to stop? At this rate, we'll all be on zero-hours contracts as part of a subcontract deal to G4S and on a pay-to-fly deal with Easy Jet.

I know we can't afford morale, ethos, history or tradition, and that fighting spirit is only just about kept up with the usual Thursday night punch up by the kebab van but I really just don't see where else we can go other than throwing in the towel and saying we're like Iceland.

I'm a conservative by instinct, but the quest for small state cuts has become a dangerous, dogmatic drive to get everything they possibly can off the Govt books by contracting out or selling everything off. It's gone past financial responsibility and is well in to the realms of abrogating state responsibility for state functions.

And yes, the article is just that -an article - and it most likely represents the worst case scenario and is therefore designed to soften us up so that whatever does occur will be seen in a positive light (hey I only had to give up one kidney to pay for my plane ticket to deploy to Syria, it could have been so much worse -I hear the Bn earmarked for the Ukraine had to stump up a lung too!). But the fact that they are even thinking it is worrying - especially as RUSI is part funded by MOD, so I question how independent this is and whether or not the authors have an 'inside track'. Through their systematic dismantling of the military, Cameron, Osborne, Hammond and Fallon are doing what Hitler tried but failed to do. The UK's capability may have taken a kicking at Dunkirk, but we had that very morale and fighting spirit that meant we could recover. Not now. And if defence isn't viewed as important to the average man in the street, it bloody well will be when they find they're sharing their Tunisian hotels and beaches with ISIL!

Melchett,it will stop when the politicians turn round to the electorate and tell them that cancer drugs for the over 80s are no longer affordable, nor is a 2 billion pound per week nhs and a state pension the country can no longer afford.

Which means it won't happen.

On paper, if we leave our own Service nepotism behind, it might work. However, there are specialisms for fighting on Sea, Land and in Air/Space which normally means that those individuals will wear insignia and different clothing denoting their specialisation. So in short, save money and put us all in PCS for day-to-day wear, or same ceremonial dress, with different hats/insignia/clothing and call us the UK Defence Force if you must. We can still keep the names of ships, regts and sqns for fighting spirit.

I'd rather do this than lose anymore FL capability, if it saves cash and a bit of support manpower then so what? If it gives the Govt something to crow about on efficiency and saving then lets do it!

LJ

VinRouge,

But that's my whole point about this dogmatic insanity - nothing seems affordable these days - regardless of whether it's defence, health, education, arts - if you listen the politicians then we can't afford to do any of it. And surely that is a problem?

If nothing else, it must raise the question of where exactly is all the cash going? And if the answer is to sort out the mess the last lot left (I really don't like the last lot, but just how long can you keep blaming them?) then the follow on question is whether the cure is worse than the disease.

Problem is, we aren't even starting to sort out the mess the last lot left. We a still spending 100 billion more than we can afford per annum.

North Sea oil is no longer economic to extract.

Oh, and multiple generations of politicians have promised more than we could ever afford, without levying the right level of taxation to pay for it.

Chickens now fully home to roost.

I honestly don't believe that we will see a budget surplus again. Government borrowing is currently preventing deflation, the debt will get bigger, but to keep the pensions companies happy, a level of budgetary cutting is expected to demonstrate we are not going to do a Greece. Of course the budget cuts will also be used to keep inflation at the "right level". All imho.

By the Gods! Splendid idea. Quick, get it down on paper and send it off to DC et al at No 10 with a big fat consultancy bill attached.:eek:

And yet we still continue to devolve power from Parliament, quadrupling the bureaucracy and civil service and the costs therein, where once one infrastructure did it all, it's the only growth industry in the UK....

When will it stop? When you have Isis on the streets of London, mass public killings and politicians being murdered...



.

It's not cheap to import 100k+ refugees every few months and put them on government assistance.

The defense establishment of the UK should be happy with whatever is left over in the budget for the protection of the nation.

Don't worry, though. This situation won't last much longer. It can't.

"Money spent on an army or navy
Is homicidal lunacy !
My son was killed in the Mons retreat.
How can a God let such things be? "*******(Kipling)

or

"Si vis pacem, para bellum!"

Irreducible minimum is the point where someone nasty looks at UK and reckons they can get away with something military without us causing them unacceptable grief.

So, Russia, Iran, China, Syria - I might even add Argentina to that list. And take your pick from just about any extremist group going in the Middle East and Africa that would love to take pot shots at the UK or kidnap British citizens overseas safe in the knowledge we can't do anything about it other than wheel the PM out to harrumph on the news at 10.

If we are to endure more cuts there must be a hard look at the RAF Regiment. We have as many regt sqns as fast jet, this cannot be right. Sadly their role (whatever it may be now) should go to the army.

Since VR brought it up, could I point out that looking after the elderly is a problem that western free market culture has given itself. In most other cultures, looking after the old and infirm is a family obligation in exactly the same way that looking after a child is.

Unfortunately, as we are finding out, it is a problem without a solution (unless you are an advocate of Logan's Run :eek:). Cutting off the elderly from an income and support just means they will all up in A&E (as we are currently experiencing) at vast (and I mean ****ing vast!) cost to all of us.

I offer no solution as there isn't one. I just wish people would not post facile "solutions" to massive (western) global problems with this "hey, it's simple just do this" mentality.

When interviewed by Andrew Marr the other day, Philip Hammond said that David Mr Cameron "Is passionate about our armed forces. He has always been absolutely clear that he is not prepared to preside over any further cuts to our regular armed forces."

"...not prepared to preside..." - that seems to indicate that, if UK voters were stupid enough to let Miliband and Balls in to ruin the nation's recovery, cuts would not be ruled out under an alternative administration

"...cuts to our regular armed forces..." - that seems to indicate that cuts to reserve forces and FTRS etc. could well be on the cards?

I gather there's another 'review' of the University Air Squadrons underway. One wonders whether that'll be another 'done deal' in the vein of the execrable Marston 'report' of 10 years ago....:uhoh:

Only insofar as bit of fun with Jenny Agutter is concerned....:E!

Actually as long as those personnel & budgets in the New Maritime and Ground support commands come from their Parent Service then I don’t see a problem.
So heres another Idea…
We gradually re-man the RAF with personnel from the other 2 services. Keep the RAF Hierarchy and positions such as CAS etc but eventually these appointments will be taken over by Blue or Brown jobs. Reorganise the RAF into 3 Commands
Ground Command – Manned & Budgeted by the Army
Maritime & Home Command – Manned & Budgeted by the RN
Home Command – Manned Jointly, Responsible for Trade training, Support systems for A/C etc

Advantages
Best working practices from all 3 services
The right people in the right environment
Savings through commonality of support
Drop of one uniform type!

Ye Gods Man! That's 3 more commands than the RAF has today!! :ooh: Surely you mean Ground Group, Maritime and Home Group and Home Group!

Oh and wasn't it exactly this structure that lead to the formation of the independent air force in the first place...... :rolleyes: