Defence review may be reopened in funding crisis - report

#1
Oh joy!

(Reuters) - The Ministry of Defence (MoD) needs to find at least 1 billion pounds a year of additional cuts to meet the government's expenditure targets, the Financial Times said Thursday.

The newspaper quoted senior MoD sources as saying this could lead to Britain reopening its armed forces review over fears that the department lacks the funds needed to meet the government's capability demands for 2020.

Britain in October unveiled plans to cut back its army, navy and air forces as part of the harshest public spending cuts for a generation.

The Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), the first since 1998, detailed cuts to the defence budget, manpower, equipment and strategic capability as well as a focus on cyber security.

"We are continuing to develop and refine our SDSR implementation plans but the SDSR will not be reopened," an MoD spokeswoman said in a statement.

However, the FT said that two senior sources, not otherwise identified, had told it the idea of reopening the defence review only a few months after it was published cannot be excluded.

One of the sources said reopening the SDSR would make the MoD look like "complete idiots" but added that the idea was being actively considered.

Under this scenario, the government would find the additional savings by further reducing the number of army personnel, Royal Navy frigates or RAF jets that the UK is projected to have in 2020.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#2
Just goes to prove that there was nothing STRATEGIC about the Review and that it has very little to to with Defence or Security.

It is purely a case of "Who cares about the Defence of the Realm? Defence is not a Government priority".

We might as well hand over defence to a public contractor.
 
#3
Just goes to prove that there was nothing STRATEGIC about the Review and that it has very little to to with Defence or Security.

It is purely a case of "Who cares about the Defence of the Realm? Defence is not a Government priority".

We might as well hand over defence to a public contractor.
Be careful what you wish for...lol
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#4
The SDSR did not make the really, really tough decisions that were necessary. As always happens, when faced with the massive loss of jobs that would come with real cuts - abandoning the pretend Carriers, abolishing heavy armour, scrapping all MPA, etc - the sort of thing that's needed - the politicians drew back. It doesn't matter what shade they are, all are scared of this sort of decision.

MOD is in financial chaos in-year, and as for the mid-term, that's even worse. I don't envy them the decisions that need to be made - and, this time, followed through.
 
#5
The SDSR did not make the really, really tough decisions that were necessary. As always happens, when faced with the massive loss of jobs that would come with real cuts - abandoning the pretend Carriers, abolishing heavy armour, scrapping all MPA, etc - the sort of thing that's needed - the politicians drew back. It doesn't matter what shade they are, all are scared of this sort of decision.

MOD is in financial chaos in-year, and as for the mid-term, that's even worse. I don't envy them the decisions that need to be made - and, this time, followed through.
Its not that complicated.
Take 10% of health and 10% off welfare and spend it on Defence. Job done.
 
#6
The SDSR did not make the really, really tough decisions that were necessary. As always happens, when faced with the massive loss of jobs that would come with real cuts - abandoning the pretend Carriers, abolishing heavy armour, scrapping all MPA, etc - the sort of thing that's needed - the politicians drew back. It doesn't matter what shade they are, all are scared of this sort of decision.

MOD is in financial chaos in-year, and as for the mid-term, that's even worse. I don't envy them the decisions that need to be made - and, this time, followed through.


Can't argue with this. The carriers in particular need to die a rapid and quick death. We've never going to use them and will just build them at huge expense so we can sell them off for peanuts at a huge loss.
 
#7
Can't argue with this. The carriers in particular need to die a rapid and quick death. We've never going to use them and will just build them at huge expense so we can sell them off for peanuts at a huge loss.
Even if they were scrapped right now they will still have to be paid for. I suppose that argument has been done to death on a different thread though :)
 
#8
Even if they were scrapped right now they will still have to be paid for. I suppose that argument has been done to death on a different thread though :)
'Dear BAE, we can't afford them, we're canceling the carrier contract. If you sue us, we won't buy anything from you again, so suck it up.

Yours

David'
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#9
"Dear Cameron

BAE are now your only choice in UK. Haven't we been clever? If you want to buy you will have to go abroad for the order - say goodbye to your next election!.

Yours ever

BAE"
 
#10
"Dear Cameron

BAE are now your only choice in UK. Haven't we been clever? If you want to buy you will have to go abroad for the order - say goodbye to your next election!.

Yours ever

BAE"


And the public really couldn't give a stuff if we do. We buy an aweful lot of gear in from abroad as it is and I don't see people storming the doors of Main Building demanding we 'but British'.
 
#11
"Dear Cameron

BAE are now your only choice in UK. Haven't we been clever? If you want to buy you will have to go abroad for the order - say goodbye to your next election!.

Yours ever

BAE"
Perhaps there should be an enquiry into why BAe has been allowed to buy up every competitor who wins an order?
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#12
"Dear BAE

We will happily go overseas and will ensure that there is full media exposure as to how BAE have systematically destroyed the homegrown defence industry in this country, held us to ransom and are responsible for wasting taxpayers money.

We will then look very closely at your tax records, just for shits and giggles.

Big Dave"
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#13
"Dear Big Dave,

I think you will find that we have bought into most of the overseas stuff as well, using the wonga that the British taxpayer has been giving us the past few decades.

Ta very much,

Yours ever gratefully

BAE"
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#15
"Dear BAE

I have lunch arranged with the heads General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. I believe you don't see eye to eye with these firms.

Get it up you.

DC"
 
#16
Even if they were scrapped right now they will still have to be paid for. I suppose that argument has been done to death on a different thread though :)
It has been done to death.
And yet many posters contiunue to repeat the falsehood.

At no time has the government said that cancelling the carriers will be more expensive than building them.
 
#17
It has been done to death.
And yet many posters contiunue to repeat the falsehood.

At no time has the government said that cancelling the carriers will be more expensive than building them.
No?

Heres the letter from Ian King to David Cameron explaining the costs-
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/letter_bae_to_government.pdf

Cameron acknowledges the cancellation costs will be greater than continuing with both carriers-
Cameron cuts defence budget by 8% | Public Finance

The costs apply whether one or both Queen Elizabeth's were cancelled.
 
#18
It has been done to death.
And yet many posters contiunue to repeat the falsehood.

At no time has the government said that cancelling the carriers will be more expensive than building them.
No?

Heres the letter from Ian King to David Cameron explaining the costs-
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/letter_bae_to_government.pdf

Cameron acknowledges the cancellation costs will be greater than continuing with both carriers-
Cameron cuts defence budget by 8% | Public Finance

The costs apply whether one or both Queen Elizabeth's were cancelled.
Looks pukka enough to me. Perhaps Ian King needs to write to WC as well.
 
#19
Well i checked the defence Intranet homepage earlier & of course the MoD are denying the FT article in reference reopening the SDSR due to fiscal issues,.

It would interesting who the two senior officials were mind you..
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
Actually, BAE are not in the business of screwing over the Britih govt - they want a return on their very large investment in buying up the shipbuilding industry like they were told to be the govt. . It would be difficult, but not impossible, to change the carrier programme to a buy of something we do need- frigates, destroyers, patrol craft - as long as the contract value was roughly the same (or more). we have a new frigate programme running at the moment (Type 26). Perhaps a switch from one to the other? Savings now - nil. Longer term savings - £8 billion. And the RN gets something they need, not want various willywaving admirals want
 

Latest Threads

Top