Joined: September 20th, 2014, 12:57 am

February 13th, 2018, 9:38 pm #11

Zen9 wrote: We are looking at cutting a sub for which most parts are ordered or delivered and which is already under construction. Just make the crewing numbers add up, because we're not trying hard enough to recruit more people.
We looking at cutting a SSN, when the need for such potent ASW assets are increasing not decreasing, even though the last proper planning session that i remember called for a force of over 9 SSN.

Russia is steadily back, from Georgia to Ukraine and beyond.
Extra-Europa states are still increasing their Submarine numbers.

Yet we're contemplating a cut to something that ought to be sacrosanct, the hidden stick at the same time as a visible stick (Army Airforce, surface Navy) is also being cut. This is a recipe for not only the perception of weakness, but actual weakness, which if tested will prove very costly to us.
If this happens, it would constitute a serious blow to British prestige and the once-given assumptions about its near-term capabilities.  I trust that Mrs. May will not let this happen.  It is time for Treasury to cough up about 20 million extra pounds for Defense.  I concur with the comment above, this is madness.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 20th, 2006, 6:32 pm

February 14th, 2018, 12:46 am #12

The gap is 20 billion pounds.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 20th, 2014, 12:57 am

February 14th, 2018, 1:51 am #13

Anthony58 wrote: The gap is 20 billion pounds.
An all rather obvious typo but thank you for the correction.  My apologies.  It might take more like 22-25 billion by the way depending on currency fluctuation in that so much of the new equipment comes from our side of the pond.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 21st, 2008, 10:15 am

February 14th, 2018, 8:03 am #14

Anthony58 wrote: The gap is 20 billion pounds.
It's over a 10 year procurement cycle measured at a time when the exchange rate is at a record low.  

To me this figure raises questions - do they use average exchange rates?  Do they hedge?  How does it interract with the maintenance and service budget?  The two should be integrated.  You can cut "procurement"
by patching up old kit, but it just increases your labour and  maintenance spend (and hurts morale)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 21st, 2008, 10:15 am

February 14th, 2018, 8:12 am #15

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... 6-2026.pdf

To me page 16 is pretty damming - we're spending more on support than procurement.  It should be 2 to 1 in favour of the latter, 1 to 1 suggests there's alot of old kit out there chewing up resources.  
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 27th, 2010, 6:20 pm

February 14th, 2018, 12:34 pm #16

RetiredUSNCommander wrote:
Zen9 wrote: We are looking at cutting a sub for which most parts are ordered or delivered and which is already under construction. Just make the crewing numbers add up, because we're not trying hard enough to recruit more people.
We looking at cutting a SSN, when the need for such potent ASW assets are increasing not decreasing, even though the last proper planning session that i remember called for a force of over 9 SSN.

Russia is steadily back, from Georgia to Ukraine and beyond.
Extra-Europa states are still increasing their Submarine numbers.

Yet we're contemplating a cut to something that ought to be sacrosanct, the hidden stick at the same time as a visible stick (Army Airforce, surface Navy) is also being cut. This is a recipe for not only the perception of weakness, but actual weakness, which if tested will prove very costly to us.
If this happens, it would constitute a serious blow to British prestige and the once-given assumptions about its near-term capabilities.  I trust that Mrs. May will not let this happen.  It is time for Treasury to cough up about 20 million extra pounds for Defense.  I concur with the comment above, this is madness.
You seem to have hit the exact problem. HM Treasury, who are massively averse to spending anything and are obsessed with cuts, regardless of whether it makes any sense or will actually cost more in the long term.

They seem to think that its their money and not a matter of public trust!?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 24th, 2007, 11:14 pm

February 14th, 2018, 4:12 pm #17

All this would be solved if we took the nuclear deterrent out of the defence budge - as it should be!!!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 15th, 2007, 10:31 pm

February 14th, 2018, 10:09 pm #18

eldritch wrote:
Zen9 wrote: Really. .....this is madness!
Don't know about madness, but it is sickening. I have just been watching the exploits of some of the Oxfam employees, and it included a shot of their huge modern headquarters .These people certainly don't stint themselves with taxpayers cash.

Whereas whilst the country can't afford to defend itself, we still pour money into corrupt organisations and countries. But the bleeding hearts brigade will always win.
A few bad apples, who were thrown out when identified (long before anything became public) don't make an organisation corrupt, any more than a few criminals mean that a whole country is corrupt. There's strong evidence that Oxfam & other charities have been targeted by people seeking opportunities to exploit the vulnerable, & that it took a while for those well-meaning organisations to realise what was going on.

I used to work with a team of Oxfam people. They were doing the same job as me for less money. They accepted that as part of what they signed up to when they chose to work for a charity.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 13th, 2013, 6:26 pm

February 15th, 2018, 8:03 am #19

SPD67 wrote: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... 6-2026.pdf

To me page 16 is pretty damming - we're spending more on support than procurement.  It should be 2 to 1 in favour of the latter, 1 to 1 suggests there's alot of old kit out there chewing up resources.  
I'm surprised it's approximately equal, I was always taught on training courses that support costs are the part of the iceberg below the surface. MOD's support costs cover all the costs of airbases, dockyards and 2nd , 3rd line support facilities etc,  not only serrvicing cost, fuels costs etc. 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 24th, 2007, 11:14 pm

February 15th, 2018, 8:43 am #20

Bledlow wrote:
eldritch wrote:
Zen9 wrote: Really. .....this is madness!
Don't know about madness, but it is sickening. I have just been watching the exploits of some of the Oxfam employees, and it included a shot of their huge modern headquarters .These people certainly don't stint themselves with taxpayers cash.

Whereas whilst the country can't afford to defend itself, we still pour money into corrupt organisations and countries. But the bleeding hearts brigade will always win.
A few bad apples, who were thrown out when identified (long before anything became public) don't make an organisation corrupt, any more than a few criminals mean that a whole country is corrupt. There's strong evidence that Oxfam & other charities have been targeted by people seeking opportunities to exploit the vulnerable, & that it took a while for those well-meaning organisations to realise what was going on.

I used to work with a team of Oxfam people. They were doing the same job as me for less money. They accepted that as part of what they signed up to when they chose to work for a charity.
I said the organisation was corrupt, and from what is being revealed that appears to have some truth in it. It is now known that some of the people in top management knew about these predators, and in fact one senior guy at least was just moved from one post to another. Now we have people resigning after the truth has emerged. Amazing how they are now all meeting with government officials, promising to clean up their act. I wonder if that's anything to do with the threat of millions of pounds of tax payers money being witheld from them.

Makes you wonder how many a 'few' bad apples turns out to be. Of course they were being targeted by these type of people, which is why they should have had more stringent vetting procedures to keep them out.
Quote
Like
Share