Cutting £2bn from the MoD Budget

#1
Had a look in the various budget threads but couldnt find any reference to this

The MoD's budget for 2011-2011 has been cut by £2bn to £36.7bn (just over 5%) and the UOR limit for this year has been revised down by £265m as compared to last year.

So whats on the chopping block?

And fear not, £50m already announced has been pulled forward. Its not new money, its just money available sooner than planned

That will be alright then

We are already started to go down the same road as the US, mooting prioritising current conflicts over possible future ones and the predictable counters by various interested parties
 
#2
Hello meridian,

there has been discussion of this elsewhere,it has been suggested that the £2,000 Million "extra" in 2010 is the cost of operations funded in addition to the defence budget while the 2011 figures exclude operational costs.
Apparently that will be added on to the 2011 figures in due time.
I stand to be corrected of course but I am hoping that is the correct interpretation of the numbers.


tangosix.
 
#3
Public spending should be 'cut by £30 billion', think tank says


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...uld-be-cut-by-30-billion-think-tank-says.html

End inappropriate defence projects. Several projects (the future carriers, Eurofighter Tranche 3,
A400M and Nimrod MRA4) do not contribute to the UK’s modern defence requirements. Saving:
£2.7 billion.
Edited to add.

http://www.reform.co.uk/documents/Back to Black FINAL.pdf

On page 22 'The Think Tank' comments

The US has recognised similar problems in defence procurement. Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, has
recently announced plans to cut pet programmes that are better matched to fighting the Cold War than
current unconventional conflicts (such as Afghanistan and Iraq). His new budget halts orders for fighter
jets in favour of cheap, low-tech weapons such as unmanned drones
.
 
#4
tangosix said:
Hello meridian,

there has been discussion of this elsewhere,it has been suggested that the £2,000 Million "extra" in 2010 is the cost of operations funded in addition to the defence budget while the 2011 figures exclude operational costs.
Apparently that will be added on to the 2011 figures in due time.
I stand to be corrected of course but I am hoping that is the correct interpretation of the numbers.


tangosix.
This has come up on warship1 as well, and I think they decided the same.
 
#6
You'll notice that none of the authors at Reform seems to have any defence knowledge or background, and that they demonstrate this spectacularly in the report....
 
#7
Atleast they're not cutting back whilst we have lads and lasses thousands of miles away fighting a war. That just wouldn't make any sense.
 
#9
It is mentioned in Janes Defence Weekly as well. The relevant bit (to avoid upsetting their lawyers & PTP by pasting everything...) says:

The UK Ministry of Defence Department Expenditure Limit will be cut by GBP2.3 billion (USD3.3 billion) between 2009 and 2011, Chancellor Alistair Darling announced in his budget of 22 April, writes Jane's Defence Economics Analyst Fenella McGerty.

The proposed combined resource and capital budget will increase to GBP47.8 billion in 2009/10 from the current estimate of GBP46.5 billion: a 2.8 per cent nominal rise.

However, the 2010/11 budget will then contract sharply to GBP45.5 billion: a 5 per cent nominal cut.
 
#10
This magical figure of £2Bn was mentioned about 18-24 months ago.

Those "savings" were made by slashing programmes I'd say were highly relevant to current ops, never mind Cold War turkeys. In fact, from what I can gather, the entire saving was made on one programme, although it is difficult to be precise as it has been fragmented and parts hived off to other IPTs. So, capability cut, and the remainder deferred by many years.

So this must be yet another cut.
 
#11
His new budget halts orders for fighterjets in favour of cheap, low-tech weapons such as unmanned drones - Think tank report.

Except he didn't halt all F22 orders, ramped up F35 etc. Are these experts predicting that future conflicts will be the same as current ones?

At a time manufacturing industry needs all the help it can get, how can anyone but an economist propose cuting these projects?
 

B_AND_T

MIA
Book Reviewer
#12
Could it be the money saved by pulling out of Iraq?

Your not there so you don't need it. Or maybe I'm being cynical!
 
#13
The figure looks like a cut as it provides for ops this year, but not next year. We won't know the estimates for next years figures until much later on in 2009.

As for cutting major programmes - easy to say, but when the cancellation cost is almost as great as the procurement cost in most cases, it does seem a little stupid!
 
#14
Then it seems the only sensible way and to save live in Stan, that the troops go onto a purely defensive mode, as they will have to account for each and every bullit they use.

OR a progressive withdrawl from overseas operations, you can't fight any war of the cheap, it does and will cost more lives!!

Unless you bring back limited National Service when they did after WW2 when the country was in the last load of sh1te, or form Penal regiments and get them to earn their keep!!
 
#15
US DoD often proposes cutting programmes they know Congress doesn't want them to, gambling that Congress will vote more funds to keep pet programmes alive. This might well happen to F22 and C17.

Once a programme actually goes into production, they tend to be very difficult to kill. I wonder how many Zumwalts will actually get built? My guess is that Congress will vote a few more to keep BIW going once the 3 on order are under construction.
 
#17
Re the cuts, including the 'Aircraft Carrier', I suspect that is why they (the carrier alliance) have been cutting steel and buying all the bits (hydraulic lifts etc) in advance of the actual build. {See previous articles on mod website}.That way when it comes to slashing spending, enough money will have been spent to make it uneconomical. Good thinking from them. (Depends which side of the fence you sit on!) Buy all the meccano bits now, and then it is difficult to justify stopping it.
 
#18
When you look at what they have actually bought most of it, I would guess could be sold on. A few £100m compared to several £billion if the scrapped it is very tempting.

I really cannot see these ever getting built, especially now the Country is basically bankrupt.

I think the future for the Defence Industry in the UK is grim. BAe systems has been basically turning itself in to a US company for the last few years. T45 stopped at 6, MRA4 cut back to 12 if it ever gets completed. Typhoon Tranche 3 in doubt, FRES dead (but was going to GD anyway), no MRAP orders for BAe systems companies.
 
#19
Salvador said:
When you look at what they have actually bought most of it, I would guess could be sold on. A few £100m compared to several £billion if the scrapped it is very tempting.

I really cannot see these ever getting built, especially now the Country is basically bankrupt.

I think the future for the Defence Industry in the UK is grim. BAe systems has been basically turning itself in to a US company for the last few years. T45 stopped at 6, MRA4 cut back to 12 if it ever gets completed. Typhoon Tranche 3 in doubt, FRES dead (but was going to GD anyway), no MRAP orders for BAe systems companies.
Economics aside, this Government won't cut the carriers because it'd be a big, obvious admission that they've got us bankrupt. And it would cost seats in Scotland- seats which Lab desperately need.

If the Tories get in it's less clear cut. That said my spidey-sense suggests that they won't scrap the carriers simply because it would cost them credibility amongst their own support very early into their term.
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#20
P2000 said:
Salvador said:
When you look at what they have actually bought most of it, I would guess could be sold on. A few £100m compared to several £billion if the scrapped it is very tempting.

I really cannot see these ever getting built, especially now the Country is basically bankrupt.

I think the future for the Defence Industry in the UK is grim. BAe systems has been basically turning itself in to a US company for the last few years. T45 stopped at 6, MRA4 cut back to 12 if it ever gets completed. Typhoon Tranche 3 in doubt, FRES dead (but was going to GD anyway), no MRAP orders for BAe systems companies.
Economics aside, this Government won't cut the carriers because it'd be a big, obvious admission that they've got us bankrupt. And it would cost seats in Scotland- seats which Lab desperately need.

If the Tories get in it's less clear cut. That said my spidey-sense suggests that they won't scrap the carriers simply because it would cost them credibility amongst their own support very early into their term.
Tories stated, last week I think, that the Carriers and the New Bombers were safe with them....

when they do the Defence Review on election...
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Current Affairs, News and Analysis 12
S Royal Signals 11
C Int Corps 54

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top