Can the British afford a strong National Defense?

#1
Here is a article I found about British military cutbacks.

http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2146622005

CVF is a flagship programme for the UK and central to the commitment in the Strategic Defence Review to modern, flexible and highly capable forces. The two larger and more capable vessels will replace the current Invincible class aircraft carriers. Assessment work is investigating aircraft carrier design options. These include designs capable of accommodating short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) and conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf.htm
 
#2
To be brutally honest, with all the money being flung at the NHS (which is rapidly bleeding to death before everyone's eyes) i would say it is going to be unlikely that the UK will be able to afford very much of anything in the near future as Gordon the Goon bankrupts everything to keep the facade going that he can manage an economy.
 
#3
Maybe after we pay you off for lend-lease.
 
#4
It's baffled me for years where the defence budget goes.
The army is too small but does it's job, the navy does not have first class warships (Nuc subs excepted) and the crabs are stuck with last generation aircraft and Eurofighter will be second best at best.
john
 
#5
jonwilly said:
It's baffled me for years where the defence budget goes.
The army is too small but does it's job, the navy does not have first class warships (Nuc subs excepted) and the crabs are stuck with last generation aircraft and Eurofighter will be second best at best.
john
I don't have the numbers to hand (pls correct me if I'm mistaken) but isn't it the case that there are more civil servants in the MoD than actual army personnel...?

I don't suppose this helps much in the budget allocation equation - does anybody know what sort of percentage of the budget actually goes on defence capability as opposed to the civilian support element?

lancslad
 
#6
PTP wrote

Maybe after we pay you off for lend-lease.

Lend-lease was not a bad deal.

Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments [sic] commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan. It is a very advantageous loan for us.
 
#8
There is a lot more to this than meets the eye (as always). What is concerning is that the media does not seem to be interested. See here. Also letter to the Telegraph.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#9
PartTimePongo said:
Maybe after we pay you off for lend-lease.
Ah yes....the last £215M due by 2015 isn't it ?

The original agreement included a 'Sale or return' clause...did any of those WW1 destroyers survive to 1945 ?

Le Chevre
 
#10
I'll agree with mushroom, N_C. Lend-Lease was appalling, if for no other reason than the piffling value your predecessors ascribed to reverse L-L items. Such as working radar systems (ground- and air-mounted), a jet engine, ULTRA encrypts and a not insignificant contribution to the Manhattan Project - as Tube Alloys - the results of which the US then refused to share (as per agreed terms) with HMG.

Small stuff really. I could go on pretty much ad infinitum, getting increasingly petty, but I really can't be arsed. Yes, the UK desperately needed secure large-scale manufacturing aid and received it from the US, but please don't try and tell us that the terms were favourable to anyone other than the US.
 
#11
If the reason for the delay is to bring the 'system' as a whole (JSF and Carrier) online at one time, then ok. not a lot of point in having a big boat with nothing to put on it!

If the reason is "where can we save a few bucks - Lets just cut the defence budget, we don't get any press 'flak' for that". Then we should all be VERY worried. The world is not a stable place, and the surest way to precipitate WWIII is for the democratic nations to be weak. -- Eternal Vigilance and all that! It seems economists don't learn from history.

SC
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#12
lancslad said:
jonwilly said:
It's baffled me for years where the defence budget goes.
The army is too small but does it's job, the navy does not have first class warships (Nuc subs excepted) and the crabs are stuck with last generation aircraft and Eurofighter will be second best at best.
john
I don't have the numbers to hand (pls correct me if I'm mistaken) but isn't it the case that there are more civil servants in the MoD than actual army personnel...?


lancslad
here we go again.....check this
http://centre.defence.mod.uk/dasa/publications/pdfs/pocketbriefs/defperpocket.pdf

( data correct as at June 2003 - if you want more recent numbers phone Defence Analytical Services Agency)

Service and Civilian Personnel 294,990

Service Personnel 206,440
Officers 33,280
Other Ranks 173,160
Civilian Personnel 88,550

ARMY

Full Time Trained Strength 102,500


It's a nice Service urban myth LancsLad - and total c0ck like most of them.....the other one we used to see pushed out EVERY YEAR during a slow news week by the Soaraway Sun was

" NAVY HAS MORE ADMIRALS THAN SHIPS"

- which when you examined it they had determined by deciding that Second Sea Lord and Commander-In-Chief Naval Home Command are two people - he ain't - and defining ships as anything bigger than 2,200 tonnes (that wasn't a submarine)

Le Chevre
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#14
Referendum you are a one trick pony and a member of the Fourth Estate and I claim my ten pounds 8)

Not everything can be laid at the door of the monomaniacs in Brussels and the great Euro conspiracy....anymore than it can be ascribed to the cunning plans of the Elders of Zion to turn us all into blood donors for the alien lizards who really run things......sometimes sh1t just happens....

( I'll just get my ally hat then)

Le Chevre
 
#15
Goatman said:
I don't have the numbers to hand (pls correct me if I'm mistaken) but isn't it the case that there are more civil servants in the MoD than actual army personnel...?


lancslad
here we go again.....check this
http://centre.defence.mod.uk/dasa/publications/pdfs/pocketbriefs/defperpocket.pdf

( data correct as at June 2003 - if you want more recent numbers phone Defence Analytical Services Agency)

Service and Civilian Personnel 294,990

Service Personnel 206,440
Officers 33,280
Other Ranks 173,160
Civilian Personnel 88,550

ARMY

Full Time Trained Strength 102,500


It's a nice Service urban myth LancsLad - and total c0ck like most of them.....the other one we used to see pushed out EVERY YEAR during a slow news week by the Soaraway Sun was

Le Chevre
Goatman, those figures are (as you pointed out) for 2003. The number of MOD civilian staff has increased since then and the number in the Army has decreased since then. I recall seeing actual figures (relatively recent) that the number of MOD staff has now surpassed the army's population.

In fact i have just found the stats (and they are 0ct 2005)

Total number of MOD employees: 106,260 (-2370 for the RFA)
Total number of army employees: 102,040 (which is -2,130 below the projected total requirement)

DASA

Whilst that seems quite conclusive, i am more than willing to be proved wrong by someone who knows better. Darth, you there???? :D
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#16
Agent, I looked at the DASA page at http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2005/chapter2.html which gives figures for 2005.

That table shows that the MoD Civilian manpower top number has fallen from 172,500 in 1990 to 108,500 today which INCLUDES 10,000 people in Trading funds and 15,000 Locally engaged personnel....in other words the gardener in Akrotiri and the bloke who mows the lawn in Gibraltar.

They also say this:

The following changes have affected the continuity of the civilian data: removal of GCHQ personnel from April 1994, and the following contractorisations: 1985 Royal Ordnance Factories (18,000); 1987, Royal Dockyards at Devonport (16,000); 1993, Atomic Weapons Establishment (6,000). In 2001 the QinetiQ portion of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (8,000) was established as a private company.
Your figures appear to include the Royal Fleet Auxillary ? Or have I been succesfully confused again?

The DASA figures for the Army also always exclude the bods in the Royal Irish Regiment ( ex UDR)....but maybe we need a DASA-ite to give the definitive statement on this .

( Goatman counting...ONE< TWO< LOTS< MANY :wink: )

I just get peeved everytime this old tale gets resurrected...in my time in the MoD civilian manpower has reduced by 34%.

Le Chevre
 
#17
Goatman said:
Agent, I looked at the DASA page at http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2005/chapter2.html which gives figures for 2005.

That table shows that the MoD Civilian manpower top number has fallen from 172,500 in 1990 to 108,500 today which INCLUDES 10,000 people in Trading funds and 15,000 Locally engaged personnel....in other words the gardener in Akrotiri and the bloke who mows the lawn in Gibraltar.

They also say this:

The following changes have affected the continuity of the civilian data: removal of GCHQ personnel from April 1994, and the following contractorisations: 1985 Royal Ordnance Factories (18,000); 1987, Royal Dockyards at Devonport (16,000); 1993, Atomic Weapons Establishment (6,000). In 2001 the QinetiQ portion of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (8,000) was established as a private company.
Your figures appear to include the Royal Fleet Auxillary ? Or have I been succesfully confused again?

The DASA figures for the Army also always exclude the bods in the Royal Irish Regiment ( ex UDR)....but maybe we need a DASA-ite to give the definitive statement on this .

( Goatman counting...ONE< TWO< LOTS< MANY :wink: )

I just get peeved everytime this old tale gets resurrected...in my time in the MoD civilian manpower has reduced by 34%.

Le Chevre
all fair points. i await the wisdom of one of the DASA folk

A_S
 
#18
SkiCarver said:
If the reason for the delay is to bring the 'system' as a whole (JSF and Carrier) online at one time, then ok. not a lot of point in having a big boat with nothing to put on it!
If indeed the JSF goes ahead. The possibility is that the US government might axe or delay the short take-off version and/or the UK government might pull out because the US refuses to release the key technology. Either way, it is not possible at this time to put a time frame on when (or if) the CVLs will come into service but there is a distinct possibility (verging on a racing certainty) that the Royal Navy will be without carriers for a period.

My guess is that by the time the smoke has cleared, we will be in the midst of a grave economic crisis and the CVLs will be quitely shelved - together with FRES and some other projects such as the FOAS replacement - whatever that might be. At that point the Army will be equipped with huge stocks of catapaults and elastic bands.
 
#19
We seem to have gone off thread a touch here. Although I would agree this government is guilty of gross incompetence when it comes to defence (ie wasting near on £1bn on inferior EU kit to keep the f&*cking frogs happy!), the central theme here is can Britain afford a strong national defence?

For me the question is slightly misphrased. It should read - Do the British actually want a strong national defence?

The answer to that question is clear - NO! For the last 15 years governments of both colours have happily chopped the defence budget, openly and honestly. Joe Public has not raised an outcry. In fact, there hasn't even been a faint whiff of disapproval. The public are more interested in schools, hospitals, the police etc.

They just do not recognise the need for a robust defence force.

As for the government, as a party whose dislike of the military is very nearly genetic, cutting our purse for their own favourite topics (see above) is such an instinctive process, it barely requires thought.

Until the public open their eyes, we will continue to receive the same apathetic response from them and ever decreasing funding from the government.

Although, how TCB expects us to be able to do anything regarding Iran, or for Iran to take any threats of military actions by our country seriously, whilst they continue to talk the guff about less being more and better, I cannot imagine - I am sure he will come up with something suitably idiotic, nonsensical and, ultimately, draining on the military.
 
#20
El Gringo said:
Until the public open their eyes, we will continue to receive the same apathetic response from them and ever decreasing funding from the government.
And it will take the Kruats/Frogs marching down The Mall to make the Public realise this, and by then, it will be to late.
 

Latest Threads

Top