Hmmmmmm.......accounts all squared away, defence looking good until a year ago. What could have happened to change the sums?
If we are supposed to have X amount of people then surely the funds should be there for X amount of people? If we only have Y amount of people then where has the money gone that should be funding X amount of people?
Because the wages bill is a shit load of money but the equipment bill is bigger
1) Because the money for X people left over from only having Y people gets spent subsidising other stuffWe are funding our capital purchases by restricting recruitment (ie wages)
OK, then.Underfunded means not going to have as much money as is wanted.
Overspent is having spent more than you have.
Which is nice.OK:
In Land the Military wages bill is approx. 50% of spend, 57% with Military & Civilian, excluding the equipment bill under DE&S.
Under Defence as a whole, and under cost communication / delegation Military & Civilian wages approx. 32%, equipment nearly 60%
In the context of this thread Defence is underfunded in ABC17, and Army are pointing out that the Navy & RAF take big slices for their equipment.
Quite, and the problem of manpower and equipment has for years been that the Army is roughly 20000 more than we need or can afford to equip- hopefully the election manpower pledge will help!Which is nice.
I believe the mantra is "The Army equips the man, the RN and RAF" man the equipment". Strangely I've only ever heard that from Army Officers justifying large numbers of Army personnel and a concomitant equipment programme.
To be fair it was always going to take longer to occur (and dont forget that sdsr period is out to 2020) because it was an unexpected present. A cynic would say the lack of a VERS programme didnt help either, as previous reductions underpinned by VERS managed to meet a five year reduction goal on the first year.Article in JDW this week, noting that the SDSR15 CS manpower reduction plan has not only failed, but failed biblically. The reduction of 15000 heads has not been achieved. Indeed, there has been a small increase, which means the £9.5Bn savings predicated on that reduction will have to be found elsewhere.
Now personally, I think the CS reduction was half-witted populism based on a "MoD pen-pushers dining high on the hog while stitching up Our Boys" meme that bears little - if any - resemblance to reality. But it does not bode well for a budget that is already stretched - something which will not be obscured however many times the mantra "increasing defence budget/£178Bn Equipment Plan" is parroted by Fallon and the half-witted Harriet.