MoD funding shortfall/ABC 17

#1
There are press reports that we're a £Bn short a year for the next 10 years, and that it's the RN's fault (CVF, F-35 and Successor) and we have to cut the RM as a result.

Who on the Army General Staff has been taking out a journalist to lunch?!?!
 
#2
There are press reports that we're a £Bn short a year for the next 10 years, and that it's the RN's fault (CVF, F-35 and Successor) and we have to cut the RM as a result.

Who on the Army General Staff has been taking out a journalist to lunch?!?!
It's always been the RN & RAF taking their big slices early on 'because they are equipment heavy' and the first line of defence, nuclear deterrent, always operational etc, and the Army which are bigger taking the scraps

The RM haven't had a very good press recently
 
#3
I seem to recollect that Commandos grew out of the Army originally so perhaps we could double hat the SIBs?
 
#4
Are you suggesting old school ties are coming into play?
 
#5
The article did feel very "but those awful RN and RAF types with their terribly loud equipment are sooo expensive, and it does so startle the horses pulling the Guns and our cavalry, so lets do away with these infernal contraptions and get back to gallantly losing land wars in Asia minor".
 
#6
Keeps coming around in many of its guises over the years:

I remember reading a report in the mid 90’s that said that the RN have a choice, either 2 of the three aircraft carriers you have asked for and lose the RM or one carrier and keep the RM. The Army said that if they were going to lose the RM they would take them. The plan being to combine them with the Paras to form “Shock Troops” and regular INF Bn would rotate as airborne troops.
 
#7
Article in The Times today that states senior RN commanders in 2002 deliberately named the new carriers as HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS Prince of Wales so that then Prime minster Toady Blair would find it harder to scrap the carriers if linked to the Royal family and all the embarrassment canceling it would cause!
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
There are press reports that we're a £Bn short a year for the next 10 years, and that it's the RN's fault (CVF, F-35 and Successor) and we have to cut the RM as a result.
Surprise, surprise, it's a treasury and centre led initiative to reduce spending on the EP over 10, not that we're short - there is a difference. Even in ABC16 we actually didn't get all of the money we asked for, a lot was held by the centre as "regulators", to be released as and when programmes needed it or proved they could use it. The last part being important because increasingly our two key suppliers (DE&S and ISS) are suffering fade (can't spend) and have huge delivery issues with their suppliers.

So what we're seeing is in effect wedge upon wedge, it will end in tears. That bow-wave thing that we wept under the rug is building up big time.

Of course the other Services are going to whine, LAND have to find some way to fund their lunatic STRIKE concept, AJAX, a future MBT and the 8x8 that they're desperate for, and all they can see is money going to CVF and SUCCESSOR. They conveniently forget the last 10-15 years of LAND centric investment, and the biggest stick that protects our (let's be honest) pretty small conventional forces, which in turn is sufficient to defend the procurement of P-8.

The debate around the Corps is interesting, they have their own vision of how they want to evolve. The SPTG concept is still being introduced, but even with the manning pressures the Naval service has faced there has been no move towards removing a Commando.
 
#9
And meanwhile, in the real world outside the hallowed halls of the Brigade of Gee Gees club…

MOD(N) CS is on its 3rd round of 'how many people can we cut this time from the people we actually need.
The RN is turning £1 Billion quid Destroyers into harbour training ships because they can't afford the refit
Retention is dire - FFS! Fix this POS, What? NF spares! I've had it! Where's that pen?

And what has the Army been doing?

Swingeing cuts in its MOD CS? Nah
Cutting its HQ footprint? Nah
Binning of things it no longer needs? Nah
Cutting down of the huge comic opera public duties tail? Nah
Reducing itself from the biggest NATO users of Horses, ceremonial, (502 of them), tourists and Officers for the pleasure of? Nah
Curbing its huge holiday (sorry, 'Adventurous Training') business? Nah
Binning its vast vanity publishing empire? Things like Soldier, luxury quality magazine run at a huge loss. Nah
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
Article in The Times today that states senior RN commanders in 2002 deliberately named the new carriers as HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS Prince of Wales so that then Prime minster Toady Blair would find it harder to scrap the carriers if linked to the Royal family and all the embarrassment canceling it would cause!
Absolutely. The steel was cut early also, to ensure money was committed and it was harder to cancel. Shrewd moves in political times.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
And meanwhile, in the real world outside the hallowed halls of the Brigade of Gee Gees club…

MOD(N) CS is on its 3rd round of 'how many people can we cut this time from the people we actually need.
The RN is turning £1 Billion quid Destroyers into harbour training ships because they can't afford the refit
Retention is dire - FFS! Fix this POS, What? NF spares! I've had it! Where's that pen?

And what has the Army been doing?

Swingeing cuts in its MOD CS? Nah
Cutting its HQ footprint? Nah
Binning of things it no longer needs? Nah
Cutting down of the huge comic opera public duties tail? Nah
Reducing itself from the biggest NATO users of Horses, ceremonial, (502 of them), tourists and Officers for the pleasure of? Nah
Curbing its huge holiday (sorry, 'Adventurous Training') business? Nah
Binning its vast vanity publishing empire? Things like Soldier, luxury quality magazine run at a huge loss. Nah
Bollocks, they've taken huge pain................the white helmets have been disbanded!
 
#13
Well the RM are already about 35K a year better off than a few years ago for starters...
 
#14
Article in The Times today that states senior RN commanders in 2002 deliberately named the new carriers as HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS Prince of Wales so that then Prime minster Toady Blair would find it harder to scrap the carriers if linked to the Royal family and all the embarrassment canceling it would cause!
What is interesting of course is that the crew of QE is going around Rosyth and Edinburgh with Tudor roses and pictures of QE1 which, given the history, context and the current politics is not that helpful!

HMS Queen Elizabeth | Royal Navy

Whoever suggested that badge for a ship built in Scotland and twinned with the Scottish capital needs to read the chapter on Queen Elizabeth 1 and Mary Queen of Scots. Please do not forget that many post boxes with QE2 on them were blown up in Scotland in the 1950s.. There was never a QE2 in Scotland.. this is correctly shown in the badge.. but to put a Tudor rose on there as well is crass..!

I am no Nat, but this is a classic example of Whitehall (and the RN) missing the point... They would have been better off staying away from the QE1/QE2 thing altogether...
 
Last edited:
#15
Bollocks, they've taken huge pain................the white helmets have been disbanded!
Beat me to it, although as we know, the White Helmets are self funded.
 
#16
Article in The Times today that states senior RN commanders in 2002 deliberately named the new carriers as HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS Prince of Wales so that then Prime minster Toady Blair would find it harder to scrap the carriers if linked to the Royal family and all the embarrassment canceling it would cause!
Didn't work with HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Duke of Edinburgh, aka CVA01 & CVA02...

Although here is an element of boxing clever, the carrier - as the major capital ship of HMQ's reign - was always extremely likely to be named after her, in keeping with several hundred years of RN tradition. The 2nd carrier name was chosen on the grounds that Charles is unlikely to be around long enough to have a similarly large vessel named after him during his reign, when it comes, so he gets 'his' ship early.
 
#17
Absolutely. The steel was cut early also, to ensure money was committed and it was harder to cancel. Shrewd moves in political times.

All 40,000 tonnes of steel plate was bought up front to get 'best value' for the taxpayer.
It was certainly not done that way to leave HMG with an embarrassing 40,000 tonne steel shit sandwich if they cancelled the ships. No Sirree, honest!
 
#18
So the end of the funding for e-Bluies was an early leak for the funding shortfalls precipitation in this fiscal shit storm!
Regimental ties will be flapping furiously and the move of certain Units back to the UK could give some more scope to Unit bloodletting
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top