25% cut over the next 5 years.
No cuts to capital spending beyond those already announced, does this mean CVF, A400 and T3 are safe?
No, didn’t think so.
This is the starting point for the forthcoming Strategic Defence and Security Review.
Good to know that Indian soldiers won’t be facing the same, thanks partly to the largesse of the UK tax payer.
Just remember this, when we are putting stamps on those brown envelopes addressed to UK service personnel.
There is also a pay freeze for any public sector employee earning over £21k
So that would be senior Privates, Lance Corporals and above then.
Read the full details here
Do we expect to see the Defence Budget take the full 25% hit, or are RUSI on the money with their prediction of a 12-15% phased reduction?
Question #2 – do the armed forces count as a whitehall budget department, or might that be limited to the MOD itself?
I have read elsewhere that according to the BBC News At 10 all departments face a 25% cut [except] education, health, international development and defence.
I have heard a few people say this but the list of protected areas in the budget report definitely does not include defence
That could mean its not protected but wont face 25% either.
Thank God.
If it only takes a 10-15% cut all they;d have to do is rerole the contingency Afghanistan funding into the standard budget to be back where we are now.
When we declare victory and pull out of course.
I can accept that Defence is not protected, I have heard nothing to indicate it would outside of the limited case of this emergency budget as opposed to the period of the parliament, but i am still curious to see if they really would hack 25% out of the defence budget, or whether a formulation of words such as “Whitehall” departments might in reality apply to the MoD, with defence as a whole taking a smaller hit such as RUSI’s 12-15 percent suggestion………?
Osborne mentioned an average of 25% accross non-ringfenced departments but said not all departments would get the same settlement.
He particularly said that he understood the pressures on defence and education, so it’ll probably be closer to 20%. Still more than the anticipated 12-15% by RUSI.
Thankfully Fox has stated that Salami slicing is no longer an option and there will be the perception of winners and losers.
We’ll either end up with a naval based military capable of short sharp get in do the job and get out warfare (which makes sense to me given distinct British interests) and also can take part with CVF in multinational efforts but not deploy ground forces for such a long duration (which also makes sense given the likelyhood of politicians committing UK forces to another Afghanistan for at least the next decade!)
Or…
We’ll have a larger army with limited power projection always needing a compliant host to use their country as a base. Or we’ll need others to kick the door in first for us, which leaves us dependent on others good will.
This second doctrine (given British interests and likely future interests) makes absolutely no sense to me as it replicates the ability of lots of other European allies.
I still think getting to the first scenario whilst currently engaged in a hot war more in line with the second is a difficult task.
“He particularly said that he understood the pressures on defence and education, so it’ll probably be closer to 20%.”
Were they his words, exactly? I don’t have a TV so often miss these televised statements.
No, the 20% estimation is my thinking.
He said 25%, that not all departments settlement would be the same and he said in his own words he recognised the particular difficulties in Eduation & Defence at the moment.
cheers,
I am still hopeful that RUSI are on the money, because if we give them any credit then such a budget assumption can still permit the ambition that Fox says he wants (which is sovereign strategic power projection)……… provided he is willing to do what he says he will do (which is to be unsentimental about the perception of winners and losers).
Global-Guadian/Contributory wouldn’t be my choice, but it is a valid choice.
JBT – again I slightly disagree with you:
“Global-Guadian/Contributory wouldn’t be my choice, but it is a valid choice.”
Contributory might be a valid model with a 12 to 20% cut to an already underfunded baseline, however I would contend that to do “Global Guardian” properly would require an increase in spending, I do not believe it is a valid model at all if any cuts are required.
In capital terms Global Guardian is the cheapest of the main options but would need more people, which as we all know are the real expence.
But
It comes down to what scale
If you are contributing to a larger global guardian type multilateral capability then you choose your level of contribution
Jed – “Contributory might be a valid model with a 12 to 20% cut to an already underfunded baseline, however I would contend that to do “Global Guardian” properly would require an increase in spending, I do not believe it is a valid model at all if any cuts are required.”
I’m going to stick with RUSI on this, they believe its possible, and i’m not in a position to gain-say them.
Bugger
My essay on a coin force has been lost.
Thats quite annoying.
Anyway.
A Coin force would be doable on a cut budget, at the expense of the Airforce and Navy.
If we do COIN like the Boer War, we just need numbers, not competance.
Lets say we have a section house, manned by a section.
And lets say we have another section house, 250metres north, and another 250m, and a fourth 250 metres north.
Well, that secures a kilometre of road, and requires 16 men.
Securing 300km of road therefore requires 4800 men.
Since these men are sat in a section house, they dont need to be particulary fit, and since any enemy have to be within 125m of at least 1 section house, they dont need to be good shots either, they dont need more than an afternoons training, or much regular gunnery practice.
They’re cheap as chips.
We could have half a million of them.
Even if they have 6 months at home and operate 1 week at section house, 1 week at main base, we’d have 125,000 deployable section housers.
Thats enough to have a section house every 250 metres along the Afghan Ring Road, three times over.
Or we could blanket a 2000 square kilometre block with over 30,000 section houses at that density.
(I think, my maths is a bit squiffy)
Interesting post from the Defence Vehicles Dynamics exhibition has been posted on Ares at:
http://tinyurl.com/24zpjxg
They quote the new Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, Peter Luff (Con, Mid-Worcs):
“We have to bring defense policy, commitments and resources into balance,” Luff warned. “[The SDR] will be a step change, not just tinkering at the edges. Our posture and capabilities must be relevant to the world we now live in. It’s clear the years of plenty are over and we face leaner years: defense is no exception. We will need to decide which [risks] we are going to meet, and which we are going to take.”
But seriously, now over 400 Jackal 1/2/2A – WTF ?
Edmund Conway seems to think the hit to defence will be nearer 10%:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/7850483/Budget-2010-Does-the-Coalition-have-the-courage-to-carry-out-these-cuts.html#comment-58376253
Admin – your YouTube link does not work !
DOH
Not too worried, at least not more so than before, this is BFN so their lead is bound to make mention of defence and the nasty “25%” word, but nothing has changed, 25% for most, less for education and defence.
Edmund conway thinks 10% but that is supposition i believe, still it may be just on the high side of the RUSI estimates, i.e. 15+ percent.
interesting double page article in the mail on sunday magazine supplement today, compares the sizes of all 3 forces today to 1990, good part is they break it down into each rank as well.
It’s in the magazine called night and day
i’m a divvy, the mag was called live! so to attone for my mistake i’ll plug in the numbers, bear in mind since 1990 we’ve done gulf war 1 and 2 afghanistan, balkans, various UN dets (angola,rwanda etc).
army/marines 1990 152,820 officers 17,440
other ranks 135,380
2010 108,869 officers 14,639
other ranks 94,230
royal navy 1990 63,260 officers 10,150
other ranks 53,110
2010 38,724 officers 7,454
other ranks 31,720
air force 1990 89,680 officers 15,270
other ranks 74,410
2010 44,060 officers 9,830
other ranks 34,230
To me this is terrible I was in from 83-05 and i didn’t click it was actually this bad, surely these figures prove that enough is enough. Yes we can shave here and there but not the 10,000 that’s been banded around IMO. maybe 1 tank reg and 1 heavy art but even then make them specialised TA units to retain the knowledge.
anyway the aricle is interesting just for the breakdown of the ranks, 180 brigadiers and 600 full colonels in 2010 where the heck are they!!!
Paul G – thanks very interesting figures – puts it all in perspective eh !
Ref: “anyway the aricle is interesting just for the breakdown of the ranks, 180 brigadiers and 600 full colonels in 2010″
First to go then, plus the undoubted surplus in Admirals too….
maybe the colonels could be formed into a new guards battalion?
classic mistake there dominic that would involve marching, not good when you include officers in that!!!
possibly even just frozen in cash terms:
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/debate/article-1289805/Sam-Cam-love-new-kitchen-No10-far-hot-Lib-Dems.html
One thing you consistently and selectively ignore in all your derisive comments regarding Indian military spending is that India is a FAR LARGER nation than the UK with FAR LARGER armed forces. As such it’s needs for modernisation are several times that of the UK. You can’t expect 2+ million soldiers to fight a war without even helmets and bulletproof vests(as has been the case in the past) just so you can keep your budget below some Auropean country with a tiny army.
And far from being on a happy shopping spree, our armed forces are facing a situation much, much worse than the UK’s, with most of their old gear being retired and/or facing block obsolescence and taking great pains to secure funding just for replacing them, let alone expanding their strategic capabilities, from a corrupt, apathetic political class and bureaucratic system that has zero understanding of defence matters besides the money and politics associates with them.
Given the sheer size of our armed forces our defence budget actually lower, as a percentage of GDP, than the UK. Compared to us the UK is and will always be massively overarmed.
But I expect you’ll ignore this post and the facts laid out within because your main motive is to spread propaganda to shame the British MoD into increasing your defence budget and nothing more. I don’t think you’ll even let it be displayed here, since it could turn a lot of other observes away from your cause.