What sort of operation is Liam Fox running?
It’s hard not to have some sympathy with him, dealt a pretty tough hand of cards by the previous shower, presiding over a basket case MoD and held hostage by the needs of the coalition, but, the talk of tough decisions, sacred cow massacres and making every penny count all seems to be a bit hollow.
When there is a need to save big amounts you can almost understand the logic behind getting rid of whole equipment types but for the small amounts you really do have to question the decisions. We have already questioned the decision to delete a supremely useful Bay Class to save less than £20 million a year but this next decision is another ‘spit your coffee out’ moment.
One such inexplicable decision is the closure of BATSUB or less snapily, the British Army Training Support Unit Belize. BATSUB is located at Price Barracks next tothe airport in Belize City and provides a range of training but focussing mainly on operations in jungle terrain to about 3,000 personnel per year. BATSUB will be reduced to a skeleton staff of just 10. It will be possible to regenerate in the future and there might be other locations but realistically, how likely is this.
The withdrawal from Belize will be greeted with howls of protest from the local brothels but can we really not afford to run a jungle training location.
Of course we can bloody well afford it, reducing training is a soft option, it avoids tough decisions but it always bites you in the arse later.
It might be a bit hackneyed to attack the overseas aid budget so how about a new target, The UK Natural Environment Research Council’s (NERC) new research ship, RRS Discovery is currently under construction in Vigo, how much, a snip at £75million or about 8 years of BATSUB running costs. This of course contrasts quite neatly with the shoestring budget for the HMS Endurance replacement.
What else does £9m a year buy, a group of shiny red aircraft for poncing around at air shows. Before anyone moans, yes I know they are a valuable recruiting tool and yes I know they offer training opportunities but at a cost of £8.8million per year what do you think offers the best contribution to the defence mission.
Option A, a unique training opportunity for 3,000 personnel a year
Option B, the Red Arrows
We could always close down a load of Coastguard stations to save a few quid, oops, too late for that idea.
Not of all these are under Liam Fox’s control but taking the decision to reduce training in favour of a display team really does beggar belief and don’t even get me started on ceremonial.
I have got a great idea, let’s save on blank ammunition and instruct recruits (sorry, soldier under training) to shout bang instead*
They say there is nothing new under the sun, shouting bang instead of using blank has been done before.
If you believe the scare stories of the Warmists in Parliament (hopefully another couple of weeks of reality might knock some sense into their majorities), it will be possible to do jungle training on Salisbury Plain in twenty years’ time. That’s forward planning, I suppose.
Well lets face, most of the public don’t know where Belize is, never mind care about jungle training. However there would be some sort of (even if it was minor) public UPROAR if the country was so skint we could not even afford the bloody Red Sparrows!
Has anyone seen Blackadder ? Because we could really do with one of Baldrick’s cunning plans about about now……
Long shot, but could the training det in Brunei be expanded to take up the slack? Or perhaps reduce the BATUS in Canada by shifting money around.
Cancelling BATSUB is a bad idea, as jungle training is not just running around the bush, but moving, communicating and fighting in a totally different environment and weather conditions. Yomping around the Brecon Beacons is tough, now try doing that during tropical rains and high humidity – not fun, but necessary.
Holland is actually expanding its jungle training (which btw used to be partially in Belize as well), and we have a current agreement with former colony Suriname.
It all comes from the realization that foreign operations (be they NATO, EU or UN) may take place in “jungly” countries as found in Africa – Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, the list goes on and on.
Bad choice Liam.
I thought they are doing jungle training currently in Brunei, and exercises in various places like Kenya.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/training-wing/154543-jungle-training-axed-belize-base-shuts-2.html#post3544332
Marcase, yes, plus there is Kenya. There are options as ever, but none of them are free and Belize offers opportunities for relatively large scale collective training.
Personally I think we can and should do more in Africa but closing down with the vague promise of jam tomorrow isnt good enough when we can afford a display team that makes a dubious contribution to the defence mission
That is indeed a ‘spt out the coffee’ shock, well at least its not being totally closed down.
Another casualty of the ‘afghan effect’ – jungle warfare is a specialist trade and since its not ‘needed’ or in the limelight of current ops, its cut…like many other specialist training and equipment. Didn’t the SDSR herald enhancing special forces? Belieze was a key part of their training…along with paras, RAF reg and other enhanced units.
I think they are depending on allies to let us join in, for the future requirement. Perhaps we might as well integrate more with the US SF.
and oh, for the comment…we do actually have people shouting ‘bang’ on some exercise senarios! Well, when training pebble monkies ;D
Its easy to turn around and compare X to Y and say ‘why wasnt this saved’, but we have to remember that these savings are part of targets for each TLB.
So, in this case LAND will have achieved a £9 Million saving, (or in the way the MOD works, £90 million over the 10 year planning cycle) against delaying Belize training. Saying, scrap red arrows instead is irrelevant – the money to fund the Red arrows doesnt come from the same budget.
The best way to look at it is to accept that the Army is switching their focus almost entirely on Afghanistan until 2016ish, and then we have 4 years when we regroup. The MOD is clear that until 2020, expeditionary operations are essentially Afghanistan or nothing.
So, it makes little sense to retain two jungle warfare schools for 10 years, when its incredibly unlikely that beyond a small cadre of SF etc, there will be any real junlge requirements. If we do, then it will be met through the Brunei garrison troops and we’ll still run Junlge warfare courses there too.
The key thing is that we’re only mothballing it – if times change, we can bring it back up to speed, but while we have no money, and are doing afghanistan to the detriment of everything else, this decision makes sense.
If you believe the scare stories of the Warmists in Parliament (hopefully another couple of weeks of reality might knock some sense into their majorities), it will be possible to do jungle training on Salisbury Plain in twenty years’ time.
Cite. Cite. Cite. Cite. Cite. Who said this? When? Cite.
The USN does not agree, according to the Daily Mail: if you read it there you’re not gay. Actually, either worse winters or worse droughts are more likely. Mountain & Arctic Warfare Cadre could perhaps use Salisbury Plain more, or the AFV gunnery school could drive up from Lulworth to practice in dry conditions. Jungle would be harder, even in Belize. It might stop being a useful capability for lack of jungles.
Jim, your post neatly encapsulates the problem and highlights exactly why the MoD is clearly unfit for purpose. If you are correct, each Top Level Budget would have had a savings target as if they were little fiefdoms run without due regard to the whole. What is important is the budget, the figures, equal pain for all but strategy, do me a favour.
As a taxpayer I absolutely can compare the wisdom of cutting training in favour of a ceremonial unit that provides some but not much contribution to the defence mission. Is the MoD at war or not, quite clearly it is not.
I am always a defender of the MoD against accusations of being full of pen pushers but if anyone can defend this decision or be happy with the process by which it was arrived at then I am afraid I am wrong to do so. If ever there was an example of an organisation being concerned with the process and not the outcome, this is it.
Can you please explain what is strategic about cutting training but keeping a display team?
Jim 30 says:
“The best way to look at it is to accept that the Army is switching their focus almost entirely on Afghanistan until 2016ish, and then we have 4 years when we regroup. The MOD is clear that until 2020, expeditionary operations are essentially Afghanistan or nothing.”
And after Afghanistan – nothing. I’ll vote for that. No more American or French wars, just defend the homeland and let them all get on with it!
Yes global warming for the UK means no Gulf Stream and that means we become Sweden. As I am already blond and gorgeous I should fit right in………
How much of the Red Arrows funding comes from sponsorship?
And I am ignorant of things in the Brown World but I thought there was some sort of jungle training in Brunei?
Also expect this to mean cuts in the commando helicopters as some civil servant presses the button and deletes everything jungly.
Hi jim30,
I am sure you are right, but bone such ” The MOD is clear that until 2020, expeditionary operations are essentially Afghanistan or nothing.” formulation has caught my eye.
Is there a particular source?
I’d cut both….
I dont see a jungle on any UK territory.
And if we really decide we need to need field a Jungle Brigade, well, Brunei will still be there, the Sultan will still be sultan, and the Ghurkas who keep him sultan will still be trained jungle warfare experts.
Hi X,
Wasn’t this “Also expect this to mean cuts in the commando helicopters” already in the SDSR, as for the Sea Kings?
Next, selling off the SAR side of them, then pinching half a dozen Merlins to put the ASaC kit from Sea Kings on something that flies, in order not to lose the capability altogether – or wait until 2010 for a fixed-wing solution.
I am quite worried about the overall naval helo numbers, even allowing for some surge by using Apache & Chinook.
Sea Kings are worn out.
I know it is helicopters with everything these days but I am unsure about the idea of helicopter warfare, that is infantry moving (for land or sea,) altogether.
Couple of points – firstly, the MOD plan for the rest of the decade and 2020 – the key open source is the SDSR itself, which is creating a visison of a ‘Force 2020′. The MODs made clear that post HERRICK it will require time to re-organise, put harmony times back in synch, sort out kit and so on – the Forces have been running on a campaign footing for 12 years now, and the cracks are starting to visibly show. Its going to take 3-4 years post HERRICK to get the forces to the point where they are ready to go to the start line again. Thats one reason why the delay of CVF isnt an issue – there is simply no capability or intent to do anything post HERRICK. At best you’ll see some very small focussed interventions, but these will be non enduring in nature.
As for red arrows and budgets – the way the MOD is funded, it has several top level budgets (e.g. Fleet, Air, Land, DE&S, Centre etc), each of which controls the financial areas under their domain. Sub budgets are controlled as appropriate, but essentially there is not one big budget of £36Bn to cut, but several smaller ones.
The Army & RAF budgets are totally seperate beasts, its like asking Sales in one company to make savings to support IT in another – it just doesnt happen.
In this process, all the TLBs have been told to make savings within their own budgets which add up to the savings required for the MOD as a whole. Cuts are proposed by creating ‘options’ which set out how money could be saved, identifying what could be done, what would be saved over 10 years, and what the impact would be for the MOD as a whole. These options are staffed at usually SO2 / SO1 level, prior to being approved at 1* – 3* level, with controversial decisions seen by Ministers.
They are ranked, and the ‘pain inflicted’ is closely looked at to see what the downside of taking it would be. Additionally emphasis would be placed on what wider mitigating measures could be adopted, and what effect it would have on UK strategic interests.
In this case, the answer would be that the option would save £9 Million from Land or a subsidiary budget, and would have minimal impact as training can still be conducted elsewhere. Afghan remains main effort, so jungle warfare is not a huge priority, and massive savings can be made from not having to move troops to/from Belize. Additionally savings will be generated from reducing the small number of troops, and reduction in no longer maintaining creaking infrastructure. The impact would be a reduction in jungle training in this environment, offset by the use of Brunei and to a degree Kenya, which can continue to generate the required level of capability till the next SDSR when we can look again at the overall requirement for jungle warfare.
Simples
guys guys stop worrying it’s not as if iran are putting missiles in venezuela…..oh hang on
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1714/iran-missiles-in-venezuela
Sorry Jim, I think you are missing the point
I think we all understand that all TLB’s have their own budgets but my principal complaint is that these should never be seen as sacrosanct, if circumstances dictate that one area takes a bigger hit than the other then so be it.
Do you really not see the complete ludicrous situation you portray, it is a symptom if empire building, inter service nonsense and a powerful reason for radical reform at the MoD. The TLB’s might operate in their own bubbles but this does not make it right.
As for your comment about sales having a reduced budget to make way for another department, I can absolutely assure you 100% that in well run organisations that see spending across the organisation it does happen and it happen a lot. The difference between a well run commercial organisation and the MoD is that the company will have a board that are pulling in the same direction and not building walls between their empires, jealously guarding their slice of the cake or giving a flying fu*k for the others or the organisation as a whole
this beggars belief to be honest, the sooner the DRU takes a big knife to the MoD the better
“The best way to look at it is to accept that the Army is switching their focus almost entirely on Afghanistan until 2016ish, and then we have 4 years when we regroup. The MOD is clear that until 2020, expeditionary operations are essentially Afghanistan or nothing.”
Nicely summed up.
“The MODs made clear that post HERRICK it will require time to re-organise, put harmony times back in synch, sort out kit and so on – the Forces have been running on a campaign footing for 12 years now, and the cracks are starting to visibly show. Its going to take 3-4 years post HERRICK to get the forces to the point where they are ready to go to the start line again. Thats one reason why the delay of CVF isnt an issue – there is simply no capability or intent to do anything post HERRICK. At best you’ll see some very small focussed interventions, but these will be non enduring in nature.”
Nicely elaborated upon.
This is why I have never chosen to get too worked up (yet) about the reduction in rapid-reaction forces down to reinforced battlegroup strength (we’ll see if that ‘calm’ survives 2015).
9 million equates very roughly in an approximate way to 9 largish fire fights in A-stan………
The MODs made clear that post HERRICK it will require time to re-organise, put harmony times back in synch, sort out kit and so on – the Forces have been running on a campaign footing for 12 years now, and the cracks are starting to visibly show. Its going to take 3-4 years post HERRICK to get the forces to the point where they are ready to go to the start line again.
They do have some very gucci crystal balls at the MoD don’t they
Does the Army still have more horses than helicopters?
That’s the Riding Club covered, the Red Arrows are the tip of the Flying Club. All the arguments on this site seem to be about the size of the Sailing Club.
By the way, the US Navy (the one we are almost totally reliant on) completed the first EMALS launch on Saturday of an F/A-18E/F at NAS Lakehurst.
Chris, we are going through a maritime phase at the moment but that is about to change
The thing about the Red Arrows and the Army’s horses is they help to keep the electorate onside.
How about a thread on inshore waters – including the Coast Guard. It is a hot topic down here in Cornwall with the announcement that the Falmouth station is to go daylight only. This is part of the plonkers’ plan to centralise control and the announcement was followed by another, scrapping the centralisation of Fire Service control. Having spent £1.5 billion!
At the same time they are thinking of selling the SAR helicopter cover……..
“I think we all understand that all TLB’s have their own budgets but my principal complaint is that these should never be seen as sacrosanct, if circumstances dictate that one area takes a bigger hit than the other then so be it.”
But thats exactly what happens – each TLB is assigned savings targets, and it will be weighted on where the priorities are. So, for the sake of argument Land may be told to save 5% in year, 3% following year, whereas, Defence Estates may be told to save 10% in year, and following reductions of 5,3,5% respectively (all hypothetical of course). Reductions are assigned centrally, via the Chiefs and the Defence Council.
Obviously within this, each TLB delegates down the level of savings to their own sub budgets – so training, Ops etc will all be called on to make savings, again of varying sizes depending on what is required.
Is it perfect, no I’m sure its not. Does it reflect the reality of an incredibly complex system which is trying to run a budget for 3 very diverse services, and which have hugely different needs ans requirements – just about. Having gone through it before, no one would invent it, but it does the job for us and I’ve yet to hear people who work in, and who properly understand defence issues (as opposed to just being interested bystanders) find a better system that works.
I appreciate that the Sailing Club scenario is just 1 discussion and I am more taken with future escorts than future bridge-laying devices! I was alluding to the fact that all we have left, in our “fur coat and no knickers” condition, is ceremonial and display. Defence cuts have always happened, either driven by mad science (1957) or, more usually, near bankruptcy (1965, 1981 and now). The so-called “Peace Dividend” was an opportunistic grab which left us with many of the problems we have today. What I do find hard to fathom is that we have to close our eyes and cross our fingers for 10 years, hoping that the bogeyman doesn’t come calling, to keep 2,000 fighting troops in Afghanistan for another 4 years. That seems to be the mantra. I’d rather see the African Mercedes’dealers have their subsidies cut myself.
TD – I’m surprised you’ve such a downer on the Discovery – around 4000 tonnes for £75m, built abroad after competitive tender, based on a windmill construction vessel, and best of all – the NERC discovered containerised labs about 20 years ago!!!
Perhaps we ought to get the NERC running the C3 programme – a lot of what they do is arguably a job for the RN, their work underpins a lot of our sub-sea capability plus stuff like how sonar propagates through water columns. And they do a fair bit of the very early stage science on what turns into assets of such national importance that it’s considered worth sending the RN to protect them, whether it’s fisheries or Falklands hydrocarbons. And of course they get a lot of the fundamental data that allows us to figure out whether the climate is changing and if so, in what ways. Considering that the existing Discovery will be over 50 years old when it’s replaced (it predates the commissioning of the County class or the Leanders) I don’t think you can criticise them too much for getting VFM out of their hulls.
Jim, that isn’t financial management and matching spending with needs it simple sharing of pain, you take 3%, you take 3% and you take 4%, job done, 10% savings.
Just saying its the best we have does not mean it is fit for purpose
“Cite. Cite. Cite. Cite. Cite. Who said this? When? Cite.”
Dear me, Alex, didn’t you notice the snow falling in London when the ridiculously expensive Climate Change Act, 2008 was passed with a massive unthinking majority? Milipede jr, Callme Dave and Windmill Huhne have all spouted the Gore-Hanson fantasy line – remember the hockey stick and climategate shennanigans. Won’t the MoD budget be even further squeezed by waste on UN obligations eg (£2.9 billion promised by Huhne at Cancun to buy windmills for Africa, etc – how many F-35s would that buy)?
El Sid, I don’t have a downer on the ship itself but the governments skewed spending priorities
Privatize the Red Arrows. Either that or maybe painting a pretty white Coca-cola stripe across the fuselage would pay for them.
I was only teasing about the ship. But knowing a little bit about what Discovery does, I’d say that even if it was funded entirely out of the RN budget, I’d still keep it, the stuff it does is that militarily relevant. Let alone all the other stuff it does in the national interest.
Conversely, I’m relatively relaxed about Belize, for some of the reasons people have outlined above. As long as we have places for Special Forces to go play, that is sufficient given the current strategic outlook. The days of us throwing our weight around in SE Asia are long gone, the only jungle that is so strategically important to us that we would send more than a token force to defend is the West African littoral. And they are doing their best to make sure there isn’t any jungle left there…
Out of interest does cutting training in Belize send out the wrong message to Guatemala? I know officially Guatemala is letting the ICJ decide but to be honest they have a snowman’s chance in hell of going their own way and if the excrement hits the fan then I am sure that we would end up sending troops into Belize.
TD, The only way to get rid of the TLB system is to adopt a ruthless commonality to the Armed Forces Structure, i.e. unify RN, RAF and Army commands. That way there really *will* only be one budget to play with.
Viva la Purple!
link to video of EMALS launch
I think it’s safe to say this could be operational in RN carriers well before 2020, if the will existed of course.
I agree with Dave here. I’m not suggesting we have airmen telling squaddies how to dig fox holes, but at a planning level all three services need to come under one management and one budget so that resources/finance can be allocated according to the assessed needs of the nation’s defence not to adhoc apportionments or because one service lobbied harder than the other.
Agree with TD as well in respect of the TLB system. If a saving has to be made it has to come out of the least important specific item of expenditure within the ministry. It doesn’t work to simply decide which is least important category between land/ sea / air and then when which service is chosen let some lower level bureaucrat cut something really important because it suits their own agenda.
Hi Richard W,
I fully agree with ” need to come under one management and one budget so that resources/finance can be allocated according to the assessed needs of the nation’s defence not to adhoc apportionments or because one service lobbied harder than the other.”
More generally, in our discussions we seem to be a bit too much in the cutting mode. Capabilities assessed across the board, as complementary, competing, lacking, superfluous… would give the the picture where to cut and where to invest.
The SDSR work on threats and grading them by probability, severity and all that (normal stuff)needs to be worked further as otherwise criteria to be applied are too much in “the fog”.