Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by goatbagthedruid, Oct 1, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. In the climate of 'deheating the programme,' having 'capability holidays' and 'moving programmes off to the right,' I was wondering where we can make savings.

    I might suggest the RAF (Army to take rotary and Navy to take everything else) but that would be too naive :wink: . Removing the Guards from ceremonial duty will mean that they get disbanded. The carriers need replacing so they can't be cut.

    A real pickle.

  2. If, and only if, it is considered important to the defence of the nation and its interests, that we retain the capability (and I'm not saying it isn't). Ditto London ceremonial, Trident etc. And I don't see why removing London ceremonial as a task, for example, would necessarily result in us losing any (or four) infantry battalions.

    What we don't have (and this harks back to the endless discussions about the point of the TA) is a top-down directive of what we should be able to achieve. Hence we have the services both front-stabbing each other over prestige projects (carriers, Typhoon updates, FRES) and service empires (the RAF and heavy lift helos etc) and scrabbling around to find enough in-year savings to carry on Herrick within Treasury limits.

    Frankly, I don't think we are given enough money to do all of what is currently expected. And MOD's piss-poor project management (as much a uniformed responsibility as CS) fritters away so much of what we do get.

    We had 5 / 6 years of Telic and just over 8 years of Herrick - yet much of our vital kit is still being procured via UOR. This is a classic management failure. And our functional top management are the ministers and the Treasury - not the 4*s, no matter how shiny they are in medals and braid.
  3. They are allocated to a military task - if you remove that task, then you loose the need to have retain them - see the Inf Bns cut after the withdraw from NI.

    I agree - the proposed savings will ensure we have even less. Or the Govt could be benevolent and give Defence the money it needs.

    I agree but we need to change the Defence focus to allow procuring for HERRICK - we will therefore need to procure for COIN not conventional ops. Decisions need to be taken at a pay scale higher than mine!


    Edited - sorry!
  4. But, because we need the heavy infantry out in for'n parts, killing the enemies of the Queen, London Ceremonial is currently being done by the RLC (with the amalgamation of the ACC, it's become really difficult to spot the killers there :) ). And that's what, company strength on foot and similar on donkeys? Still not convinced that losing that mil task will cut 4 inf and 1 cav batt. NI, yes, much bigger commitment, much bigger savings.

    I'll be rude and ask if you have taken your meds this morning. That was sarcasm, wasn't it?

    And mine. But the direction needs to be there for the adults to take sensible decisions. We seem to have a situation where we are "carrying on as normal" (i.e. the post Cold-War, efficiency savings, slow pull out of Germany, still prepared to fight the evil Russian hordes - hence heavy cav, RN anti-submarine, fly-boys with fast toys attitudes) oh, and by the way, you are now in two (okay, one) vicious COIN ops. But crack on with the Gershon savings, please.
  5. Yes, it may have been :)

    I believe the cuts will be ruthless. We need to prepare for it!