Whilst the largest howls of protest have come from those interested in cock waving rather than real military capability, capability that delivers in the operations we will actually find ourselves in, the real cuts have fallen in the non glamorous areas.

Not a single ex Admiral, General or Air Vice Marshall is going to write to the Telegraph or appear on a podium at RUSI to complain about the loss of logistics or ISTAR capabilities, instead they whine about fast jets and aircraft carriers.

If they were actually interested in capabilities and not ego’s then they might have made more of the Sentinel or Bay Class but instead we get constant drivelling about bloody aircraft carriers and Harriers.

It is about time the debate matured and moved on.

Liam Fox has presided over a defence review that was almost universally derided and yet instinctively one wants to give the SDSR the benefit of the doubt but the complete idiocy of the rushed review process is bought into sharp focus by figures such as those released in a recent Parliamentary Answer.

The Bay Class

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the construction cost of RFA Largs Bay was; and what its running cost was in the last 12 months for which figures are available

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

It is not possible to separate the costs of procuring RFA Largs Bay as these were part of the Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) project which provided a batch of four Bay Class ships. The total procurement cost of the Bay Class of amphibious support ships was £660 million.

The annual running cost of RFA Largs Bay, based on the expenditure incurred by the Department in 2009-10, was approximately £9.5 million. This figure includes maintenance, manpower, inventory expenses, satellite communications and fuel costs, but excludes depreciation.

The Red Arrows

Question

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, Plaid Cymru)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the military application is of the Red Arrows; and what military usage has been made of the Red Arrowsin each of the last five years.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

The Red Arrows do not have a direct operational role. However, they contribute to a number of military tasks, including public duties and security co-operation, where they support defence diplomacy by demonstrating British excellence, strengthening international relations and promoting wider British influence and interests.

Question

Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the running costs, excluding asset depreciation, of the Red Arrows were in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and how much the Royal Air Force received in (a) sponsorship, (b) appearance fees and (c) other payments in respect of the Red Arrows in that period.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

I undertook to write to you in answer to your Parliamentary Question on 29 June, (Official Report, column 483W) about the running costs, excluding depreciation, of the Red Arrows for the last 12 month period for which figures are available and how much the Royal Air Force received in (a) sponsorship (b) appearance fees and (c) other payments in respect of the Red Arrows.

The running costs (excluding asset depreciation and receipts) for the Red Arrows for financial year 2009-2010 were £9.35 million.

Over the same period, in respect of the Red Arrows, the RAF received items to the equivalent value of some £85,000 in sponsorship, £425,000 in appearance fees and £14,000 in merchandising Royalties.

Tough Decisions

If you wanted to save just shy of £10million per year, what would you cut?

In what world is it a sensible decision to retain the Red Arrows but sell off Largs Bay to the Australians?

This would be a tough decision but I guess some sacred cows are just not meant to be culled.

Maybe Liam Fox and David Cameron might reflect on the loss of real capability when their chests swell with pride at the sight of a diamond nine.

I can’t be reserved, understanding or even handed about this, it is a strategically incontinent decision made by idiots of the first order, and that is being unkind to idiots.

If the coalition government is going to retain any shred of credibility on defence it needs to address this and many other issues before people start looking back at New Labour with fondness.

Not even Geoff Hoon would make a decision like this.