So, what should be cut?

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
albedo
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
United Kingdom

So, what should be cut?

Post by albedo »

I know there's a lot of defence experience and expertise here (and much more opinion too). I see so many posts bemoaning the lack of spend on this project and on that service, but without much constructive suggestion about what ought to be done. Does anyone have any sane proposals for what they would do for future expenditure.

Ground rules:

1. Spend won't dip below 2% GDP, but there won't be much scope to increase it either, given the huge competition for spending from other government departments on health, social care, the COVID aftermath etc etc.

2. GDP is likely to dip by 5% in the coming few years as a result of COVID and Brexit and so the defence budget will also have to fall in line with this.

3. The black hole in defence equipment expenditure has to be managed down to the tune of 2-3%/year or £1B/year.

4. So overall you have to find savings of 7-8% pa for the next say 5 years.

So what would you do by way of cuts? Spend more is not an acceptable answer in present circumstances

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Lord Jim »

I have asked a similar question in the past but no one wanted to discuss it them.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by bobp »

I would cut Warrior upgrade, and fit the new turrets to Boxer adding ATGM to the turret as well.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by mr.fred »

bobp wrote:I would cut Warrior upgrade, and fit the new turrets to Boxer adding ATGM to the turret as well.
So set the programme back by some years and make it more expensive, while reducing the number of Boxers available?

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by bobp »

The Warrior upgrade program has cost plenty, and showing little signs of getting a main gate go ahead. The funds would be better directed in my opinion at up arming some of the Boxers to give them more protection. Hopefully there will be a batch 2 of Boxers, that could have the turret fitted.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by RunningStrong »

bobp wrote:The Warrior upgrade program has cost plenty, and showing little signs of getting a main gate go ahead. The funds would be better directed in my opinion at up arming some of the Boxers to give them more protection. Hopefully there will be a batch 2 of Boxers, that could have the turret fitted.
But why do you assume that the turret is a good part?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Repulse »

The problem is to discuss what you’d cut we need a grown up conversation of what we are trying to do and what is needed to do it.

Problem is that everyone here has their own fixed views and the government has an inability to argue what is right versus what the “broadsheets” think is right based on their own beliefs/prejudices.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Lord Jim »

Starter for ten;

Army:
Warrior Upgrade canned.
Lose half the Regular infantry and Light Cavalry units within 1st (UK) Division.
Wildcats sold off.
Ajax buy reduced by between 30 and 50 percent.

Airforce:
Pumas scrapped/sold.
Hercules scrapped/sold.
One or both Tranche 1 Typhoon squadrons Disbanded with training of foreign pilots moved to another squadron.

Navy:
Once Prince of Wales is full operational, Queen Elizabeth goes into extended readiness.
two or more of the GP T-23s are scrapped/sold off now with the remainder by 2025.
Waves sold once all Tides are operational.
Both Albions placed in extended readiness as we did with both Fearless class before the Falklands.

As usual I have pulled the pin from the grenade and tossed it into the room.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by SW1 »

The problem isn’t having the conversation, everybody likes to talk about whats needed provided it’s exactly what’s gone before but with a bit more of it.

We’ve scratched around for 30 years trying to figure out a justification for defence spending and came up the expeditionary force for good mantra to attempt to continue the spend and be all things to all men. It hasn’t worked that well.

Russia’s back, what do I need to keep them off the front lawn.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:Russia’s back, what do I need to keep them off the front lawn.
And China Is hassling the kids at school. One of the big things we need to realise is that the USA is no longer there as big brother, so we need to find more of our own way. Good news is that Canada, Australia and New Zealand are exactly in the same place.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by bobp »

RunningStrong wrote:But why do you assume that the turret is a good part?
Good point, but I have heard nothing to the contrary.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote: a grown up conversation of what we are trying to do and what is needed to do it.
SW1 wrote:Russia’s back, what do I need to keep them off the front lawn.
UKlandpower.com puts it succintly

"limited by the size of our economy[. If] we are forced to adopt a more realistic and reduced set of defence and security tasks, we will be able to resource them better and thus perform them to a higher standard."

"Schwerpunkt" for success is taught in military academies, but civil administration, in any way involved in defence, and newspaper editors may be all at sea with such a concept
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:imited by the size of our economy[. If] we are forced to adopt a more realistic and reduced set of defence and security tasks, we will be able to resource them better and thus perform them to a higher standard."
That is the key but with our Politicians constantly going on about Global Britain and us having a Global Presence these are unfortunately polar opposites. The discussion on here as to what to deploy forward EoS Suez is a good case in point. If we adopt the first the first principal then we have to accept that our commitment to NATO is our Primary duty, and only resources not required to meet these tasks could be deployed else where. But is we adopt the second principal we end up not having sufficient resources to meet out NATO commitments and even than the forces we are able to deploy else where could only be seen as being of limit military value, instead being more tokens to shore up our Foreign policy aspirations.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by dmereifield »

According to some James Forsyth (The Spectator) on Twitter, Cummings isn't keen on reducing the armed forces head count, and would prefer to cut the MoD civil servant head count instead. Is there much scope for that? If so, what are the likely scale of savings and what are the consequences of reduced MoD civil servant numbers?

User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 293
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Zero Gravitas »

The US has the budget to do everything. We don't. Let's stop trying to pretend we can.

Reduce funding for the army significantly. Lose all heavy and medium formations. Accept significant head count reductions.

After that, any spare funds released should be reinvested in the Navy and air force. More Astute, 138 F35 etc. Increase airlift.

This returns the UK to the defence posture that was pretty successful for a number of centuries - prior to the 20th when we started trying to be a continental power.

Our role in NATO then becomes clearly that of a sea power, with an air force that can deploy to the front line in support of allies. Investing in the Navy gives at least one fully functional Carrier group for global expeditionary warfare, or as part of a coalition. Air lift ditto.

If the SHTF in a really bad way then ultimately that is the conventiaonal force structure you would want to defend the island of Great Britain.

CMOR
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 12 Jun 2020, 08:35
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by CMOR »

Perhaps a fantasy cut, but the nuclear deterrent is the most obvious one. Would save a lot in ongoing running costs of the Vanguard-class (all of which are needed of a refit to keep them going throughout the 2020s), and would also take a lot of pressure off the Equipment Plan by removing the Dreadnought-class; never mind all the costs associated with the Atomic Weapons Establishment and the warhead development. The most obvious way to avoid the "Belgium with nukes" pathway is to get rid of the nukes and spend some of the money saved on not becoming Belgium. It's not a fully sovereign capability, we never want to use it, and arguably is something of a Cold War relic with an outdated justification in a world where the major powers are actively planning for limited war, not total war.

NB that a lot of the budget problem is over the long term (next 10 years) so we should think about cutting future programmes. TEMPEST is an obvious one, surely. It's not clear that we will actually need a like-for-like Typhoon replacement (especially not one that's "optionally manned") nor that we have the industrial capacity to actually build one. I certainly don't think that money for Tempest should come at the expense of F35B purchases (otherwise the carriers are going to look even more stupid than they already do).

I'm not sure what the problem is with Ajax, but if the build quality problems are really severe, the whole thing should be looked at again. The Permanent Secretary at the MOD is due to write to the Public Accounts Committee about this: they are "reassessing" the programme. A cut in AJAX numbers and and some of the money reinvested in fires would be very welcome. Warrior CSP is also an obvious if the hulls really are too knackered to be usable; the turrets can be used elsewhere (Boxer). And yes, the Army can certainly lose some infantry; we don't need endless light battalions with no supports.

Give up on the idea of the Carrier Strike Group: it wouldn't be risked (or useful) in high-end warfighting and we can't afford it anyway. But keep at least one carrier for lower-intensity operations: the French have got plenty of good use out of Charles de Gaulle. As part of a new "NATO plus" strategy aim for a Navy specialized for anti-submarine warfare in the North Atlantic as its primary role: maybe even try to buy some SSKs off the shelf from Japan or Sweden.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by SKB »

Send the V boats to sea without nukes. Who's going to know?!
"Built For, But Not Equipped With" :mrgreen:

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Repulse »

Tight alignment of CANZUK capabilities to ensure a significant and credible global voice is my view on the way forward. Joint contributions to NATO and FPDA (with strong working associations with India and Japan), optimised to work with the US but capable of independent operations if needed.

Focus on high end stuff but with the load shared, and more viable global presence.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by SW1 »

The UK should reposition to secure its own back yard with a focus on long range strike, aar, air transport and intelligence gathering assets.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Repulse »

The UK’s backyard is the North Atlantic - this means ASW, Sea Denial, QRA and A2/AD. This requires CEPP, SSNs, T26s, MCMs (and Mine Layers), MPAs, Merlins, UAVs, Typhoons, Air Refuel Tankers and land based SAMs and SSMs. A lot of this is the same kit that would be used globally to support allies.

What is not needed is expeditionary land forces of any scale.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by mr.fred »

It’s a difficult problem, as losing any given capability is hard and will have knock-on problems to other areas.
Choosing the Navy first as the cost of the other arms because that worked for us in centuries past misses the way the world has changed. Air and land transport have changed the balance of power in that regard.

If I were tasked to cut things, I’d probably look first at the “exquisite solution” rather than any given platform. The desire to have the best “Top Trump” card at the cost of something that can do 80% of the job at much less cost.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote:The UK’s backyard is the North Atlantic Area
And the organisation setup to that end to ensure:

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.

They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Repulse »

SW1, I have no problem with NATO, beyond it’s over reliance on the US. What I have a problem with is we somehow use it as a reason not to focus what is needed elsewhere. For example, I’d cut the ability to deploy a Strike Brigade to Eastern Europe (the modern equivalent of the ill fated BEF in WW2), before any cut to project CEPP or similar capabilities globally (which we need as part of NATO anyway).

We will fail as a country if we think the world ends at Europe’s (NATO’s) borders.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote:SW1, I have no problem with NATO, beyond it’s over reliance on the US. What I have a problem with is we somehow use it as a reason not to focus what is needed elsewhere. For example, I’d cut the ability to deploy a Strike Brigade to Eastern Europe (the modern equivalent of the ill fated BEF in WW2), before any cut to project CEPP or similar capabilities globally (which we need as part of NATO anyway).

We will fail as a country if we think the world ends at Europe’s (NATO’s) borders.
There is the problem, the assumption that we need to focus elsewhere and to assume we do, means that we have to militarily.

Japan and Australia as an example have quite a lot of dealing both diplomatically and economically with Europe but we won’t be seeing the JS Izumo or HMAS Canberra sitting off the western approaches running asw screens or amphibious landings on the coast of Norway. And just because they won’t does not mean they think the world ends at Bali or that they have no interest in what’s happening.

They may send an occasional frigate or aircraft to a fleet review or air show and use the time to conduct some affiliation with certain units over here. They may send intelligence of increased Russian actively in the Pacific and ask are we observing similar our end. But there not going to be sending assets to conduct offensive operations in Kosovo or Libya.

We can help or join in the development and export of weapons and or training so people can defend themselves but it is not our job to do it for them we have our own problems to sort out. It doesn’t mean we can’t do things elsewhere we can move things about but it means that it will likely be in more specific and niche areas it would not be as broad a spectrum or at the scale as we offer in the NATO region.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by serge750 »

Lord Jim wrote:Starter for ten;

Army:
Warrior Upgrade canned.
Lose half the Regular infantry and Light Cavalry units within 1st (UK) Division.
Wildcats sold off.
Ajax buy reduced by between 30 and 50 percent.

Airforce:
Pumas scrapped/sold.
Hercules scrapped/sold.
One or both Tranche 1 Typhoon squadrons Disbanded with training of foreign pilots moved to another squadron.

Navy:
Once Prince of Wales is full operational, Queen Elizabeth goes into extended readiness.
two or more of the GP T-23s are scrapped/sold off now with the remainder by 2025.
Waves sold once all Tides are operational.
Both Albions placed in extended readiness as we did with both Fearless class before the Falklands.


As usual I have pulled the pin from the grenade and tossed it into the room.
Also Have 5 crowsnest merlins perminantly converted & 3 or 4 wired up for back up,

I would try to sell or scrap one of the Albions,

After the first batch (3) of T26 at Goven I would insert 3 x T31 with TAS (1 every year) then go back to the T26, hopefully stretch out the equiptment budget while retaining hull numbers in the late 2020's early 30's, still build T31gp in Rosyth, but will retain T26asw focus for the carrier group to begin with.

Post Reply