Given that the all the defence personnel budgets combined come to less than 10Bn annually, the Army underspend resulting from undermanning isn't even close to that figure.’what happened to the annual £5 Billion windfall the Army’s been receiving for a decade General?
A bit like 42cdo On Spearhead when Bosnia kicked off.At the time, IIRC, 1 Para were in Redford Barracks in Edinburgh, with a Spearhead role. So they didn't get to go to the Falklands, and were Most Disappointed.
Oh, but we do....... we're just biding our time.Certainly, the Far East (the old Malay states) and AU want the UK back and engaged. India will need a more careful approach, but ScoMo and Modi seem to be getting on just fine, so the UK can thank f@@k the Aussies don't hold a grudge....
Nothing was misspent on HERRICK that would have any impact on day to day Defence Budget activities.No. I'm saying the money wasn't there to fund those capabilities (accounting for some cash being wasted through poor procurement).
If you think the money was there, where did it go? We're talking tens of billions to keep those programmes alive, so what was mis-spent on HERRICK to account for that kind of sum?
You can't just claim 'the programmes should have been maintained' as if there's unlimited money. We have a budget; it was spent elsewhere.
Not true. There was considerable non-NACMO spending.Putting it simply there was the budget then NACMO (including RDEL, CDEL and NME) which in turn was offset in savings in Defence expenditure as a result of Operations.
It went on those things, plus the other costs of running the army. There wasn't enough left over both to run HERRICK and buy all the high-end kit needed for near-peer warfighting.So tell me where did the Defence Budget go because it was sure as eggs not on recruitment, accommodation, training or equipment.
Army has spent like a drug addict whos found a wallet full of debit cards for over a decade.Given that the all the defence personnel budgets combined come to less than 10Bn annually, the Army underspend resulting from undermanning isn't even close to that figure.
Again, where do you think the money went? It was spent on HERRICK.
Very, very badly.On running the army
Ok, so you can't answer the question about where the money went instead. Glad we cleared that up.Look at the situation to-day an Army that would struggle to depoly a single Bde which it could not then replace,, Divisions which are just job clubs for senior officers as there isn't a cat in hells chance they could deploy and fight. The whole thing is a mess but for the last twenty years there has been the constant merry-go-round of the totally mediocre 'top third' sustaining their own incompetence while hopping from promotion to promotion.
And you can't either.Tot up all the £Billions wasted on vanity, superfluous and stillborn projects over the last decade alone.
The sums are simply eye watering - and the nett result of the insane spending splurge has been an equipment programme that could be politely described as a total disaster.
Tanks that are obsolete and being gas axed to ‘save money’, Artillery either extinct or obsolete, armoured carrier programmes assorted that has delivered little at astonishing cost - FRES is a prime example, but a myriad others are available.
That is infantile, even by your immature standards.Ok, so you can't answer the question about where the money went instead. Glad we cleared that up.
Jumping to insults because you've been caught out? Yep, really mature.That is infantile, even by your immature standards.
This makes no sense. You're the one claiming that the money existed but was wasted; I'm claiming that there wasn't enough money.suppose it would help if you from your doubtless extensive sources gave a breakdown of the entire Defence Budget 2001 - 2019 by year and showed me where the expenditure was, line by line.
Let's keep this civil?Jumping to insults because you've been caught out? Yep, really mature.
You claimed the only reason the army doesn't have high-end warfighting kit is because of 'poor leadership'. For that assertion to be true, the money has to have been spent elsewhere. It speaks volumes that you can't actually say where it went. Could it be that the money didn't, in fact, exist and the army hasn't managed to magically make 10s of Billions disappear?
Keep insulting me all you want. It doesn't hide the fact that you've made a lazy argument that you can't support.
This makes no sense. You're the one claiming that the money existed but was wasted; I'm claiming that there wasn't enough money. The onus is on you to show that the money did exist and was wasted on unnecessary expenditure. But as we've established, you can't.
The first one is growing and the second one has always been problem as some skills are instantly transferable to the wider civilian sector. Only thing stopping lots of people walking was the last recession and now this one. |Things are not all green this side of the fence.Less bullshit and better retention.
Because you made a specific claim that needs evidence.Why is the onus on me?
My understanding of a budget is that it imposes spending limits so that you can only buy a certain amount. You seem to be claiming that we could have bought a lot more, despite providing a link showing that we already have a significant overspend. Thanks for providing that by the way; it's useful evidence for my argument that our budgetary constraints are significant.Do you actually understand how budgets work? Don't worry if you don't many in the MoD do not. A simple explanation of that here: British military could be left depleted after £13bn shortfall
For about a billion pounds worth over a decade, we had the black comedy of Indirect Fire Precision Attack and its successors. This started out as a family of areas to improve the ability to make Bad People into Dead People more efficiently at longer ranges. Unfortunately, pretty much every part of it went wrong, some of it very expensively.Ok, so you can't answer the question about where the money went instead. Glad we cleared that up.
A very good question and I can see why you've fielded it.Yes, the army has cut its own throat to a degree with its buggering about and chasing of unicorns but getting rid of the last vestiges of anything 'heavy' and a lot of other stuff besides... okay, let me push this back to you:
If we got rid of all of that stuff, what do you see the army doing in the short and medium term? How do you see it doing it, and how do you see it regenerating?
You have made numerous unsupported claims I however have signposted you to various official reports which lead me to my conclusions.Because you made a specific claim that needs evidence.
So, you really really don't understand bugets then?My understanding of a budget is that it imposes spending limits so that you can only buy a certain amount.
This is broadly my point. There's a definitely a decent amount of money wasted for various reasons, but where projects were cancelled it's generally because the funding was needed to support HERRICK and TELIC. There just wasn't enough money to fund those operations and keep the warfighting division (or even brigades) equipped with the latest kit.There was no coherent, long-term thinking: projects were cut and cancelled because they weren't supporting the main effort of Iraq (and especially Afghanistan under ENTIRETY), then there was a mad scramble to support the CORGI of the Strike Brigades, then a serious "oh, crap" moment as we looked at peer-level conflict. Lots of money was being spent but to absolutely no result whatsoever.