The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

As long as the UK continues to have overseas territories, the RN will maintain the same requirements. What needs to happen is either.

a) Ditch the overseas territories, or
b) fund the forces properly.

I think there is too often a tendency to equate; cost savings with direct reduction in capability, there are plenty of other ways to make real efficiencies from the equipment budget.

• Aggregation of demand across services, even across countries, we are seeing a lot more of this (CAMM) but then the F35 – Typhoon is a stunning opportunity missed.

• Sourcing in low cost areas – controversial if international, but many things are still very London/SE centric. We could do JVs with countries we don’t directly compete with like: India, Australia, Japan etc.?

• Are we just over paying?

• Could we restructure the relationships with our suppliers – work closely with suppliers to help them; is the MOD an easy customer to deal with? Certainty of work, designing with exports in mind (not compromising), we hopefully will see this with T26 but how long has this taken. Sampson a success but has the RN/MOD helped or hindered its export? Sometimes I think BAe/RR achieve exports in spite of RN/MOD.

• Joint process improvement – it there long term value is shipping blocks around the country, either a structured plan to build certain types in certain yards or close and focus on others. Stop ordering kit and then delaying it or cutting the orders. Had we ordered the T45/Astute/CVFs over longer periods they would have not caused such problems with budgets and we would probably been able to afford more.

• Not gold plating, but specification fit for purpose. i.e.: the T45s could have been built to the spec of say the F100, could the CVF be 25 knot and 45,000t.

I think one of the most refreshing things I have seen in the UK is the way so many people are talking about how the Government can generally be more efficient, do things differently or do we need to do at all. The RN needs to embrace this with enthusiasm not a negative campaign of resistance

 

[1805]

Broken records are at it again!

The RN's primary focus will remain that of sea-lane protection and strategic raiding through the maintenance of a credible ARG.

People have got to stop counting hulls and focus on bang-for-buck power projection capabilities. The unit costs of modern combatants are astronomical compared to previous generations, even after inflationary factors. Man-power costs represent one third of a militaries expenditure if made up of an all volunteer force. With modern technology improvements we should expect to see the number of hulls/crew shrink further, offset by substantial increases in ISTAR and strike capabilities contained onboard each respective vessel/submarine.

Whilst one must accept a sub/surface combatant can only be in one place at one time, the range and firepower of the those reduced assets stretches infinitely further than what was available previously. Just compare technical specifications of an Astute with a Batch 1 Trafalgar, or a QE with an Invincible, and not forgetting the processing and detection ability of a single T45 exceeds that of all the T42's put together. The F35B represents a step change in technology compared to the Harrier GR9. 3 Commando Brigade is far more potent today than it ever was - improved fire-power, armoured support and SF assets have not just increased in size, (SBS now a Commando sized asset, it was only a sqn in 82) but its ISTAR abilities have grown exponentially ( now a dedicated battalion sized unit), plus an army Commando have been added to the mix. We are talking about a divisional strength of combined assets on the RN's ORBAT - remind me again which other country in the west bar the US has such dedicated combined arms at its disposal capable and PRACTICED in operating anywhere on the planet (jungle, arctic, desert)? That tastes like Moet to me, not cheap larger!!!

I will be happy to see an active ARG plying the seas with 1 x QE, 1 x Astute,1 x Albion, 2 x Bays, 2 x T45, 2 x T23/26 supported by a myriad of RFA vessels. In peace time I will also be happy to sea only 12-18 RN/FAA F35B's in permanent residence on the active QE supplemented by the occasional draft of USMC, Spanish or Italian F35B's. This will still allow for additional T45 or T23/26's to fly the flag around the globe and keep the RAF happy with ground based F35B CAS.

Britain is a small island located in a part of the world surrounded by allies The nearest credible maritime combatant (Russia) is now a shadow of its former self with most of its fleet rusting in dock yards with a government forced to buy from the west to gain any sort of comparable capabilities outside that of nuclear strike. The clear and present danger remains one of failed states or state sponsored terrorism. The future RN will be in its best position to support overseas operations than at anytime since the Korean War.

The problem with your rosy picture is it's largely based in the future, and if it is possible will only be achieved by accepting for long periods significant capability gap.

I want to see a balanced versatile fleet; today and tomorrow. This surely was a big lesson from the Falklands, with hopelessly inadequate air defences. We have been in a very similar position since the retirement of the FA 2, with only 5 dated T42s. We many not regain a balanced fleet till 2018 over a decade!

I don't see your problem with discussing efficiency in the RN in a RN blog? But if you find it a broken record don't feel you have to read or respond to the posts.

 

[1805]

Wouldn’t want to have to ride a cheap vessel into combat personally, and in this day and age thinking of the public reaction to snatch excreta would hope the politicians had learnt from these mistakes

UORs: The true cost of time - Defence Management

Good post by Dickon M on another board, very interesting got me thinking about how the principles could be applied to warships, mainly; how could this system best be applied to a modern warship build and suggest the forthcoming Type 26 could be an ideal candidate.

Firstly I think that it would only be suitable for ships if we make sure that we build them with sufficient flexibility in the basic design to allow for systems to be swapped out cheaply and that the core capability of the vessel is high end and has the possibility of lasting the life time of the hull which I would expect to be around 30+ years. Core capability I guess is an argument in it’s self but as a starter for ten would think main radar, hull mounted sonar, VLS silo and propulsion would be core fits and hard to swap out unless we are talking about electric motors in which case generator sets could be easily swapped out.

Would this put us in a position that would allow for procurement of weapons EW and command systems following the UOR principles do the board members think that this would be a cost effective approach? I think that it may be a very good way of fitting out individual batches of the Type 26 and may be a cost effective approach to allow the production of ships to suit today’s needs with the flexibility for additional fits over the 30+ year lifespan of the ship

It was the Army which sent soldiers to their deaths in Snatch Landrovers, while they wasted all the money they could find on sourcing perfection which they still don't have (FRES). Amazingly nearly every army in the world has managed to buy modified off the shelf 8x8 APCs.

It is very sad that in 50/60s the Army was more apporpriately equiped with: Saladin/Saracen/Ferret.

 

[Grim901]

It was the Army which sent soldiers to their deaths in Snatch Landrovers, while they wasted all the money they could find on sourcing perfection which they still don't have (FRES). Amazingly nearly every army in the world has managed to buy modified off the shelf 8x8 APCs.

It is very sad that in 50/60s the Army was more apporpriately equiped with: Saladin/Saracen/Ferret.

I'm glad they haven't bought FRES-U yet. All indication are that it isn't actually what the Army would have needed in Afghanistan. Not enough mobility OR protection from IEDs.

The real stupidity was that Britain HAD MRAPs in the 90's which it sold for a pittance to Estonia I believe. Then when it came to Afghanistan our guys in their Land Rovers found themselves patrolling with Estonians in our old MRAPs.

And 1805, could you start using the multi-quote function, you can then reply to everyone in one go, rather than 3 posts one after the other.

 

[1805]

And 1805, could you start using the multi-quote function, you can then reply to everyone in one go, rather than 3 posts one after the other.[/QUOTE]

NO

 

[Locarnus]

Broken records are at it again!

The RN's primary focus will remain that of sea-lane protection and strategic raiding through the maintenance of a credible ARG.

[...]

I will be happy to see an active ARG plying the seas with 1 x QE, 1 x Astute,1 x Albion, 2 x Bays, 2 x T45, 2 x T23/26 supported by a myriad of RFA vessels. In peace time I will also be happy to sea only 12-18 RN/FAA F35B's in permanent residence on the active QE supplemented by the occasional draft of USMC, Spanish or Italian F35B's. This will still allow for additional T45 or T23/26's to fly the flag around the globe and keep the RAF happy with ground based F35B CAS.

Britain is a small island located in a part of the world surrounded by allies The nearest credible maritime combatant (Russia) is now a shadow of its former self with most of its fleet rusting in dock yards with a government forced to buy from the west to gain any sort of comparable capabilities outside that of nuclear strike. The clear and present danger remains one of failed states or state sponsored terrorism. The future RN will be in its best position to support overseas operations than at anytime since the Korean War.

I totally agree with you!
Its like impulse shopping. People go to city with their cash and credit card in the wallet to buy some trousers and come back with the 50th pair of shoes/the 20th computer gimmick/whatever for 3 times the money they planned to spend and sometimes they even forget to buy the trousers they set out for. And then back home making up an awful lot of excuses why buying all those toys is more important than the trousers or the next holidays.

That would be all fine if you have plenty of money and have a hard time finding ways to spend it.
Its not so funny anymore if you have very limited money and the trousers you forgot were for your children because they have only 1 left to wear and you just recently lost your job/income.

With the UKs budget deficit of ~12% of gdp (easily leaving greece behind) it leaves you wondering what would be more damaging to britain, someone robbing the person, taking the cash, or 2 more shopping runs bringing home some useless toys and a whole bunch of excuses for buying them...

The problem with your rosy picture is it's largely based in the future, and if it is possible will only be achieved by accepting for long periods significant capability gap.

I want to see a balanced versatile fleet; today and tomorrow. This surely was a big lesson from the Falklands, with hopelessly inadequate air defences. We have been in a very similar position since the retirement of the FA 2, with only 5 dated T42s. We many not regain a balanced fleet till 2018 over a decade!

I don't see your problem with discussing efficiency in the RN in a RN blog? But if you find it a broken record don't feel you have to read or respond to the posts.

Please give me the real world threat matrix for this "capability gap", as long as we are talking about defence the direction would go like that:
threat => countermeasures
and not the other way around
(Unless you propose a mineshaft gap, then I rest my case)

And a "balanced" fleet would also be dependent on the threat, not like l'art pour l'art.

 

[1805]

I totally agree with you!
Its like impulse shopping. People go to city with their cash and credit card in the wallet to buy some trousers and come back with the 50th pair of shoes/the 20th computer gimmick/whatever for 3 times the money they planned to spend and sometimes they even forget to buy the trousers they set out for. And then back home making up an awful lot of excuses why buying all those toys is more important than the trousers or the next holidays.

That would be all fine if you have plenty of money and have a hard time finding ways to spend it.
Its not so funny anymore if you have very limited money and the trousers you forgot were for your children because they have only 1 left to wear and you just recently lost your job/income.

With the UKs budget deficit of ~12% of gdp (easily leaving greece behind) it leaves you wondering what would be more damaging to britain, someone robbing the person, taking the cash, or 2 more shopping runs bringing home some useless toys and a whole bunch of excuses for buying them...




Please give me the real world threat matrix for this "capability gap", as long as we are talking about defence the direction would go like that:
threat => countermeasures
and not the other way around
(Unless you propose a mineshaft gap, then I rest my case)

And a "balanced" fleet would also be dependent on the threat, not like l'art pour l'art.

I am not sure I fully understand either of your posts? However if you mean we don't face a real threat from aircraft so its ok to just rely on a few AWD, you might be right but you might be wrong.

The cold war is over so we don't have to fight a Battle of the Atlantic? But I would say the threat from SSKs from a regional power is as dangerous as SSNs and a reasonable number of ASW frigates is needed to protect assets. So high end ASW frigates is in my view important box; whereas compromising numbers to add Land Attack capability when this can be provided better by F35 or other ships is to me a risk.

3 Iranian Kilos is not a nightmare now, but we are not going to war with them now (no stomach or money for 3 straight defeats in a row at their hands). But we probably will wait 10 years until they have reverse engineered some more.

 

[Locarnus]

The main message would have been, that with UKs current financial situation the defense spending (along with all other resorts) has to operate at the absolute minimum, derived from current and foreseeable, credible threats. Any further spending has to be very well justified with regards to return on investment like methods.
Otherwise a sustained deficit in the region of 10% per gdp and year (eg because of "defence" overspending) is going to kill the UK faster than most foreign nations can with direct hostile actions (Soviet Union anyone? ie the defence department would actually have helped killing the own country).

And given the US global deployment and their sustained willingness to play around with it if anyone is dumb enough to paint something remotely looking like a target on themselfs, the iranian capabilities for air and naval warfare would be toast long before the UK gets there.

 

[1805]

The main message would have been, that with UKs current financial situation the defense spending (along with all other resorts) has to operate at the absolute minimum, derived from current and foreseeable, credible threats. Any further spending has to be very well justified with regards to return on investment like methods.
Otherwise a sustained deficit in the region of 10% per gdp and year (eg because of "defence" overspending) is going to kill the UK faster than most foreign nations can with direct hostile actions (Soviet Union anyone? ie the defence department would actually have helped killing the own country).

And given the US global deployment and their sustained willingness to play around with it if anyone is dumb enough to paint something remotely looking like a target on themselfs, the iranian capabilities for air and naval warfare would be toast long before the UK gets there.

.

Completely agree, with our appetite to tag along with the US and even US interest in further intervention low, all we have to do is participate. We can still be the US best friend on a faction of the commitment.

Any independent action would most likely be against 2nd tier powers. I still think SSKs & coastal batteries (missiles and maybe guns) represent the best weapon for weaker countries, any attempt to challenge the RN (of other major naval power) at sea or in the air would be short lived.

 

[deepsixteen]

It was the Army which sent soldiers to their deaths in Snatch Landrovers, while they wasted all the money they could find on sourcing perfection which they still don't have (FRES). Amazingly nearly every army in the world has managed to buy modified off the shelf 8x8 APCs.

It is very sad that in 50/60s the Army was more apporpriately equiped with: Saladin/Saracen/Ferret.

Are you really a politician 1805?

You do seem a little reluctant to acknowledge that politicians have any responsibility for defence. I think that there are many examples of budgetary led decisions by politicians that have cost lives (snatch is one helicopters another) and doubtlessly the military/DPA have made mistakes as well which is why the thrust of my post is about a procurement system that is proving very successful.

Indeed it seems to be dare I say it cost effective not by buying either cheap or gold platted as you sometimes put it but by buying best available. It also heavily involves the users of the equipment and runs to very tight timescales into service. The question I was posing was how this could be applied to warships in a realistic manner acknowledging that you cannot change the hull every couple of years.

 

[1805]

Are you really a politician 1805?

You do seem a little reluctant to acknowledge that politicians have any responsibility for defence. I think that there are many examples of budgetary led decisions by politicians that have cost lives (snatch is one helicopters another) and doubtlessly the military/DPA have made mistakes as well which is why the thrust of my post is about a procurement system that is proving very successful.

Indeed it seems to be dare I say it cost effective not by buying either cheap or gold platted as you sometimes put it but by buying best available. It also heavily involves the users of the equipment and runs to very tight timescales into service. The question I was posing was how this could be applied to warships in a realistic manner acknowledging that you cannot change the hull every couple of years.

Hehehe, not I'm not a politicians, they have ultimate responsibility, but Snatch is one I would disagree with on the blame, the military chose what they want and then the politicians provide oversight. What I don't agree with people is that problem is all the money, yes always nice to have more but, there is enough if not wasted (not jsut in the MOD)

If the Army could say they never originally wanted Snatch but it was forced on them. I would have more sympathy, generals afterwards blaming politicians is not good.

Trouble is Politicians do not have enough knowledge to challenge the military when they are pulling a fast one, and the golden rule is when your in a hole keep digging and hope it doesn't go off when your around.

You're right if we were all in a room I think you would find very little disagreement, post are not great at debates.

My issue with Brown was he just turned a blind eye to a war he didn't agree with and thought providing money was the answer. Generals need direction to, and he didn't provide.

Had he got up and said the job of servicemen is to fight and if necessary die for their country and the job of the PM is to be able to say that huge price is justfied, I can no long say this so they are coming home today. That would have been a brave man would would have won an election. As it is he is not better than that Lloyd George who signed off all those battles and distanced himslef from the Generalsin his memoirs afterwards

BTW an excellent articale in your post very good points on real issues in procuring equipment.

 

[Locarnus]

.
Any independent action would most likely be against 2nd tier powers. I still think SSKs & coastal batteries (missiles and maybe guns) represent the best weapon for weaker countries, any attempt to challenge the RN (of other major naval power) at sea or in the air would be short lived.

3 Iranian Kilos is not a nightmare now, but we are not going to war with them now (no stomach or money for 3 straight defeats in a row at their hands). But we probably will wait 10 years until they have reverse engineered some more.

On the other hand I certainly have to agree that a threat to the UK can arise and be problematic in 10 years or so and that subs would likely be one of the most dangerous part of it regarding the UK.

History has an ample collection of occasions where countries became dangerous within years (eg Germany 33-39, a mere 6 years for that kind of threat). Although in the case of real sea capabilities this would probably take longer and the germany example limps because of their tech/industry/aso capacity.
But in almost all cases there are warning signs early enough to prepare and only the failure to recognize them invites the real problems.
Regarding the "balanced" fleet another failure would however be to let go the experience to meet such a threat, because tools can be made faster than regaining the knowledge/experience to use them properly. And given UKs characteristics and importance on a world scale, I totally agree that this experience would have to span all missions and equipmentm, thus calling for a balanced fleet.

 

[1805]

On the other hand I certainly have to agree that a threat to the UK can arise and be problematic in 10 years or so and that subs would likely be one of the most dangerous part of it regarding the UK.

History has an ample collection of occasions where countries became dangerous within years (eg Germany 33-39, a mere 6 years for that kind of threat). Although in the case of real sea capabilities this would probably take longer and the germany example limps because of their tech/industry/aso capacity.
But in almost all cases there are warning signs early enough to prepare and only the failure to recognize them invites the real problems.
Regarding the "balanced" fleet another failure would however be to let go the experience to meet such a threat, because tools can be made faster than regaining the knowledge/experience to use them properly. And given UKs characteristics and importance on a world scale, I totally agree that this experience would have to span all missions and equipmentm, thus calling for a balanced fleet.

Yes, another real threat is he general decline in our industrial capability, will we be able to build MBT in the future. The 10 year rule inflicted such damage to the defence industrial complex.

 

[Locarnus]

Since most other NATO countries face strong budget contraints as well, the consolidation process in the defence industry will probably speed up. It is very advanced regarding the production of aircrafts, and many warship designs in europe are developed jointly, with only some parts later on being nationally decided.
Considering the comparatively low complexity/unit costs for land based systems, the pressure was not as high in this area, but with shrinking numbers needed/ordered and the increasing budget constraints that will change as well (but imho it will be quite a while until some entirely new mbt or so will be designed).

With regard to the UKs ship ordering, the decision to do it on its own is most likely more based on good lobbying from BAE systems, then on anything else. A luxury hardly affordable right now.

 

[riksavage]

Yes, another real threat is he general decline in our industrial capability, will we be able to build MBT in the future. The 10 year rule inflicted such damage to the defence industrial complex.

To be honest I'd rather see the UK focus on building cutting edge UCAV's than MBT's. The latter is a saturated market, and at the end of the day BAE owns much of the US's AFV market (United Defence), so why not simply buy from them and assemble in the UK. As long as proprietary information is transferred and a suitable assembly/maintenance base is retained (as with the planned GD ASCOD SV), I don't really care, what brand is stamped on the platform. We need to stop being sentimental, the UK is no longer spending a third of GDP on defence like it did during the glory days of the RN.

Recent public/private partnership agreements are actually guaranteeing long term employment. The methodology behind long term contracts (10-25yr arrangements) based on hull/airframe availability means companies such as BAE can and have signed-on apprentices and graduate engineers for the long haul. They are obligated under penalty clauses to guarantee a minimum number of available platforms, the pressure is transferred for the user to the supplier, The same way Lord Beavorbrook dovetailed the military with industry during WWII is being duplicated today to spread costs and maintain viability through the cyclic nature of defence expenditure. The classic example being a contract with BAE to supply future ammunition, they are obligated to ensure production can by maintained in blighty and have subsequently invested in new plant.

Whether will like it or not defence companies and parent countries will end up moving into niche areas to survive, there's simply not enough home-grown demand or cash to sustain the full spectrum of very expansive R&D and manufacturing capabilities across all disciplines. A classic example of this is Russia's planned purchase of a Mistral, their ship building industry has collapsed following a severe drop in domestic and overseas demand, so they need to buy outside proprietary designs and know-how to make up for years of neglect and loss of maritime R&D expertise.

Navies will have to go the way of the A400, different countries manufacturing different components. The current trend of fewer hulls capable of being adapted for different roles will continue (particularly as man-power costs increase). Allied nations will end up building common hulls and then cherry pick containerised add-ons (AeW, AsW, Mine Countermeasures), each specialised container built by a nation/company, which has chosen to focus limited budgets on a particular technology instead of trying to be all things to all men.

In the old days designing a 16'' gun had more to do with small teams of draftsmen, forging, milling, logistics and sessions on the proving grounds than years spent in R&D. By comparison the billions of dollars spent trying to develop a fully integrated AeW system, which is a: not obsolete when finally in service, or b: can generate enough sales to recoup R&D costs represents a huge gamble for any company. Multiply that risk across the complete spectrum of modern land,sea and air systems and there's no wonder companies are now selecting to specialise in limited areas and transfer some of the risk to partner nations/foreign companies.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

There have been numerous UAV/UCAV projects eg kestrel, corax, raven, herti, taranis, nightjar, replica etc with the latest being the bae fury. Yet the british army ends up with the Israeli watchkeeper and MQ-9s. can't compete when the competition spends billions in research whilst only millions of pounds get spent on tech demos.

To be honest, UK defence industry has deteriorated into joint programmes rather than the more glamourous projects. Nevertheless, there are glam projects eg M777, himar cabs etc.

Even where Thales won the CV design, BAE is still the prime contractor.

I think UK land systems development is seriously under-estimated though consolidated. The base of BAE land is still alvis vickers which originally designed the Challenger. The acquisition of United Defense = bradley/paladin/crusader tech. Don't forget Chobham originated from the UK and the challenger mk 2s are still a match for anyone.

I think the UK could design a new MBT if it wanted to but there's a lot more competition nowadays.

 

[riksavage]

There have been numerous UAV/UCAV projects eg kestrel, corax, raven, herti, taranis, nightjar, replica etc with the latest being the bae fury. Yet the british army ends up with the Israeli watchkeeper and MQ-9s. can't compete when the competition spends billions in research whilst only millions of pounds get spent on tech demos.

To be honest, UK defence industry has deteriorated into joint programmes rather than the more glamourous projects. Nevertheless, there are glam projects eg M777, himar cabs etc.

Even where Thales won the CV design, BAE is still the prime contractor.

I think UK land systems development is seriously under-estimated though consolidated. The base of BAE land is still alvis vickers which originally designed the Challenger. The acquisition of United Defense = bradley/paladin/crusader tech. Don't forget Chobham originated from the UK and the challenger mk 2s are still a match for anyone.

I think the UK could design a new MBT if it wanted to but there's a lot more competition nowadays.

Globalisation and the transfer of military hardware, R&D and manufacturing from state owned companies to multinational corporations answerable to shareholders has changed the game forever. Just look at the list of BAE proprietary vehicles it has on offer, many designed and manufactured overseas. Borders are meaningless in the 21st Century, there's absolutely nothing stopping BAE manufacturing any one of those designs in the UK, taking all proprietary information with them. Having a company like GD building the next generation of recce vehicles brings additional UK based manufacturing to the mix (80%, including supply chain) and I support that political decision (weight and turret ring size being another critical factor).

Combat Vehicles - BAE Systems

Reference Watchkeeper, the UK went for an upgraded version of something tried and tested, same goes for Reaper. The Israeli's are the worlds recognised best manufacturers of small to medium UAV's the US high-end UCAV's, the decision was a no-brainer. I suspect however the next generation of UK UCAV will come out of BAE's stable simply because of the importance of the Warton facility and ongoing skunk works activity.

With T45, QE and Astute, no other NATO country outside of the US is building a range platforms of such complexity simultaneously. The Astute represented a technical challenge on a par with the space shuttle. All that expertise will be carried over to T26 and Trident replacement.

I don't think the UK will manufacture another heavy MBT, the ASCOD will form the basis of the next LOS direct fire weapon, which coupled with developments in smaller and cheaper ground based missiles linked to UAV ISTAR technology may remove the need for a heavy tank replacement. The single purpose of such an asset is to kill other tanks and hold ground (something an attack helo can't do). The ASCOD LOS can hold ground protected by UAV/missile/attack helo overwatch. Quote GD:

General Dynamics [GD] UK announced its ASCOD SV, candidate for the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) Specialist Vehicle (SV) program, offers the option of early delivery for the heaviest direct fire vehicle variants as a result of its weight capability and turret design.

GD U.K. Chief Engineer John Abunassar said in a statement: "From day one, ASCOD SV offers full operation at 42 tons. This means it can carry a 120mm gun easily without compromising armor or performance. Our design for a large turret ring is an advantage for the soldiers inside that opens up the flexible option of an early path to the heaviest FRES SV vehicles."

 

[1805]

My fault I know for mentioning MBTs but we should return to the RN.

 

[deepsixteen]

I totally agree with you!
Its like impulse shopping. People go to city with their cash and credit card in the wallet to buy some trousers and come back with the 50th pair of shoes/the 20th computer gimmick/whatever for 3 times the money they planned to spend and sometimes they even forget to buy the trousers they set out for. And then back home making up an awful lot of excuses why buying all those toys is more important than the trousers or the next holidays.

That would be all fine if you have plenty of money and have a hard time finding ways to spend it.
Its not so funny anymore if you have very limited money and the trousers you forgot were for your children because they have only 1 left to wear and you just recently lost your job/income.

With the UKs budget deficit of ~12% of gdp (easily leaving greece behind) it leaves you wondering what would be more damaging to britain, someone robbing the person, taking the cash, or 2 more shopping runs bringing home some useless toys and a whole bunch of excuses for buying them...



UK budget deficit as a % of GDP does not tell the story properly nor does the fact that we have the highest headline debt figure ever you should perhaps take a look at these charts:-

United Kingdom National Debt Charts

Puts it all into a proper perspective for me, you could argue that the historical record shows that things are not as bad as is being made out. While in cash terms defence spending is increasing it is/has been contracting as a % of GDP, it is bobbing along at just over 2.5%. It is also a fact that defence spending as a proportion of government spending is now less than 9% and any savings in defence will be minimal in the scheme of things. The key statistic seems to be %GDP on debt repayment Labour don’t seem to have got it as high as they have in the past.

I do however want to see good use of our resources but I would also like to see defence funding at between 2.75% and 3% of GDP which is in my opinion a reasonable amount (and get the value for money the Australians appear to be getting). I would also point out that the impact of large scale cuts on defence will be bad in the manufacturing sector that government wants to boost.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Despite the talk about debt and cost cutting, defence and education will still be top priorities ie last and least impacted.

One thing I expect the UK govt is already doing is spreading/delaying cost. So for big ticket items, instead of getting everything all at one shot, spread out the investment over a longer period ie delay acquisitions rather than cut spending completely. Progress payments get spread across differing budgets and maybe even provide more time to iron out kinks in the interim.

That's why I think both the 2 x QE CV project and the F-35B will survive (just a longer acquisition and later in-service date).

Cutting it doesn't save much in view of the penalty costs. Thank the labour govt for all those mega projects (A400M, F-35B, eurofighter, A330, QE CVs) that can't be cancelled... Might as well enjoy the full benefit (only later).