Royal Marines Gucci Rebrand

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
’what happened to the annual £5 Billion windfall the Army’s been receiving for a decade General?
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.
 
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.
A bit like 42cdo On Spearhead when Bosnia kicked off.

“Huzzah, lets go!”

“Stay where you are lads, you can sit this one out.”

Something to do with APC’s or whatever.
 

Cromarty

Clanker
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....
Oh, but we do....... we're just biding our time.
 
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.
Nothing was misspent on HERRICK that would have any impact on day to day Defence Budget activities.

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.

NACMO has been funded by the Treasury Special Reserve since 2001 not by the MoD.

So tell me where did the Defence Budget go because it was sure as eggs not on recruitment, accommodation, training or equipment. Oh hang on there is a Saddle Club in every Garrison.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
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.
Not true. There was considerable non-NACMO spending.


So tell me where did the Defence Budget go because it was sure as eggs not on recruitment, accommodation, training or equipment.
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.

According to you there was loads of money to spend on updating kit and the only reason it didn't happen was 'bad leadership', so where did the money go? It can't just disappear.
 
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.
Army has spent like a drug addict whos found a wallet full of debit cards for over a decade.
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.

And still the Army won’t ask itself and answer the basic question the RAF and RN asked themselves and answered a decade ago.

What do we want to be? How do we get there?
 
On running the army
Very, very badly.

Do your own research as you seem oblivious to the NAO reports and Defence Committee reports which document how Defence funds have been squandered even to the point where soldiers were treated so badly they walked and potential soldiers never joined.

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.

So what is the plan and what is the end state? At least the Navy has one.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
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.
Ok, so you can't answer the question about where the money went instead. Glad we cleared that up.

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.
And you can't either.


Amazing isn't it. According to you two we had all the money needed to buy the kit for modern peer combat (in the region of 50 Bn for a full suite), but neither of you can point to where that went.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so you can't answer the question about where the money went instead. Glad we cleared that up.
That is infantile, even by your immature standards.

I 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.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
That is infantile, even by your immature standards.
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.

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.
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.
 
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.
Let's keep this civil?

Why is the onus on me? Simply because you are smarting from being shown reality and are hiding behind operations as an excuse to disguise poor fiscal management.

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

A particularily good howler here (probably quite close to false accounting)

"In one case, desperate officials paid Boeing $8.2m (£6.4m) just to delay submitting invoices so that the main spending would take place in future years"

Another
" Because of the loss of control, the army has been forced to upgrade fewer tanks and has abandoned various other anti-armour project "

You see the money was there but they lost control of spending. Due to a lack of fiscal knowledge and intellectual agility the answer time and time again was to raid other budgets and thus bring down the entire house of cards. Net result? The Field Army was under funded and under resourced. Let's not forget, people died because of this.

Now off you trot to the NAO and PAC web pages and read the detail.
 
Less bullshit and better retention.
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.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Why is the onus on me?
Because you made a specific claim that needs evidence.


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
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.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Ok, so you can't answer the question about where the money went instead. Glad we cleared that up.
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.

An easy part was the Deep Fires Rocket System - that was a MOTS buy of ATACMS-ER. Which, because it was simple and straightforward, has been delayed, descoped, cancelled, revived as Large Long Range Rocket, studied, deferred, dropped, and is now back as a technology demonstrator via SERAPIS.

Similarly, the Ballistic Sensor Fused Weapon was a MOTS buy of the SMART 155mm shell. Cancelled because "there weren't any tanks in Afghanistan" and heavy metal warfighting was so 20th century; revival was blocked because STRIKE weren't going to have 155s and there's no SFW that fits a 105mm shell. (122mm yes, but that's a different story...) and there was no need for the Artillery to have an anti-armour capability at range; then blocked again because AS90 didn't have the range to make proper use of it (without dying) and there was no point buying a munition without a weapon to fire it.

Extending the range of AS90 looked like a (relatively) simple job with a 52-calibre barrel and new charge system required, trialled, proved, exported... and not bought because of "other, higher priorities".

The idea of "loitering munitions" that could orbit above a patrol providing sensor coverage and lethal strike, absorbed a quarter-billion all by itself to produce some prototypes that were never deployed or used (Fire Shadow, anyone?) Apparently the question of "how many do we launch per patrol?" and "you mean you can't re-use them once launched?" had never been asked or, if asked, the answer had been given a stiff ignoring. To cover the gap Fire Shadow should have filled, we crash-bought Exactor as a UOR, then took it into core without asking "is this useful outside low-intensity action like Afghanistan?" which meant we spent a lot of money on a very marginal capability.

IFPA(Static) staggered on through delay and deferment and was rebadged as "Tactical Guided Munition Indirect", which was meant to be a MOTS buy of Excalibur GPS-guided 155mm shells from the US - until it was pointed out that the cases where TGMI was useful, we wouldn't have 155mm guns, and anywhere we were throwing 155mm shells around, we could expect PNT services to be at least partly denied. (At least that killed the project in the concept phase before we'd spent £150 million on procurement...)

Facing both the weight and imminent obsolescence of the M270 (MLRS vehicle) and AS90, the Army bought the Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon Systems (Gun) and (Rocket) - as anyone who's seen LIMAWS(R) and LIMAWS(G) demonstrated and fielded can attest. Oh, wait, that all went nowhere.

So, the solution to the block obsolescence of the Royal Artillery became Project CONGREVE, which after a fair bit of work... was parked and ignored.

Realising that there was this new concept called "a wheel" being bandied about, the next evolution was "Land Fires Decision Support" (named, perhaps, in hope of someone actually making a decision and seeing it through) which... was dropped because the starting assumption of "must primarily support Op ENTIRETY by providing precise, zero-collateral fires in total air supremacy with complete ISTAR coverage" was suddenly overtaken by events where it was noticed that the Russians had offered fraternal support to their comrades in the Crimea, were not supporting the Donbass seperatists at all, and had no designs whatsoever on the Baltic states, and a comparison of a Russian motor-rifle brigade's organic fires with their British equivalent proved... alarming.

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.



That's a lot of money spent, and the only tangible output for it is eighteen Exactor launchers on unprotected flatbeds in case we try to do "HERRICK, but better this time" while the land fires capability we entered the 21st century with has been virtually unchanged over two decades (MLRS got guidance and lost the grid-square removal option, and AS90 stopped firing bomblet, and... er...) except for getting nearer its OSD with replacements remaining elusive and no coherent plan in sight.
 

Check_0ne_Two

Old-Salt
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?
A very good question and I can see why you've fielded it.

I've sat down a couple of times and tried to answer it without entering the realms of fantasy fleets which I'm finding pretty much impossible and is VERY telling in itself.

The situation is that bad.

Go all in on Boxer ? Modules for fires, ECM, AAD / AUAV ? How do we enhance our logistics chain - Include recovery here - to match speed of advance ?

Ditch Ajax / Warrior, but keep the nice new shinny turrets for Boxer ?

Go SF/SFSG/16AA centric ?

Realise we will never operate unilaterally again - so do we forward base / deploy to cut response times ?

NATO commitments etc....

Sounds nice on paper, but as you say just isn't a good idea if being careful.

Do we need to be careful ?


However -

A cultural admission that change is both warranted and needed is required no question. Straight away. Not kicked into the long grass and by a leadership not scared to be associated with such fundamental reviews / changes.

Much like the RN it has to be all or nothing.

Speed in acceptance of the situation is also important to match current regen cycles of many of our traditional partners. I'm looking at the Aussies and Land400.....

Again there's a thought that the RN were invested in the RAN going for the Global Frigate / T26 as long term there wa a greater chance of more hulls down the line if other countries were sinking costs into the program. Also see RCN. The RN lobbied hard. Joined up thinking.

Do the same.

In terms of regen when it happens ( ?) with UK plc reaching out to the commonwealth for trade I'd tag on defence alignment in a heartbeat. Share costs, share programs. innovate, collaborate. DON't gold plate. Stay away from the French and Germans. Lobby the Swedish and Japanese.

It's a mess.
 
Last edited:
Because you made a specific claim that needs evidence.
You have made numerous unsupported claims I however have signposted you to various official reports which lead me to my conclusions.
My understanding of a budget is that it imposes spending limits so that you can only buy a certain amount.
So, you really really don't understand bugets then?
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
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.
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.

Could we have spent the cash we had better? Probably. Was it anything like enough to have fully equipped a warfighting division with modern kit? No, not even close.
 

Euclid

War Hero
Getting back to the thrust of the thread.

The new RM capability is based on a new gun, a new uniform and a white ensign badge. Fcking genius.

Where the fcuk are we getting our senior officers from these days and why isn’t anyone reigning them in?
 

Latest Threads

Top