It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Budget Cuts for MOD?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Also it says on the article:



Last week Chancellor Gordon Brown, in his Spending Review, gave the ministry a 1.4% annual real-terms increase in its budget, but demanded 2.8billion in savings on procurement of equipment and back-room support functions by 2007-08.

Overall the budget for armed forces will rise by 3.7bn, from 29.7bn this year to 33.4bn by 2007-8.


Anyone know what this 'real-terms' thing is?


Sometimes, I just feel as though all these terms are spin and just there to confuse us so by the time we have worked out what it is, they have invented and are using a new term.


[edit on 21/7/04 by Hyperen]




posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hyperen
Also it says on the article:

Anyone know what this 'real-terms' thing is?


Sometimes, I just feel as though all these terms are spin and just there to confuse us so by the time we have worked out what it is, they have invented and are using a new term.


[edit on 21/7/04 by Hyperen]


It is just bunkum to say they get something out of nothing - basically he is saying the they have to make cuts to the tune of 2.8 b in the MOD budget then they can spend the saved money on something else, so he then claims to have given them in 'real terms' an extra 2.8b in funding - all smoke and mirror to make it look like you are giving them extra money when all you are doing is cutting some parts and re-investing the saving in others. REALITY no extra money just enforced cuts



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Real terms- it means if you took inflation out of the equation



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Well they have now been announced this afternoon with a few surprises

BBC website story

Among key measures planned are:


  • RAF to shed 7,500 jobs and the Navy 1,500 jobs by 2008. A further 10,000 civilian posts across the armed forces will be cut.

  • Four infantry battalions - three from England and one from Scotland - to be cut as part of the "restructuring".

  • Three type-42 destroyers and three type-23 frigates taken out of service from the Royal Navy by March 2006. The oldest destroyers - HMS Cardiff, Newcastle and Glasgow will be pensioned off by the end of next year. Three anti-submarine frigates - HMS Norfolk, Marlborough and Grafton (only entering service in 1996) will be pensioned off by 2006. Three mine countermeasure vessels, HMS Inverness, Bridport and Sandown, will be paid off by April 2005. Three Northern Ireland patrol vessels, HMS Brecon, Dulverton and Cottesmore, will be paid off by April 2007.

  • One RAF Tornado F-3 air defence squadron would be cut and the withdrawal of two Jaguar squadrons would be brought forward to 2006, with the final Jaguar squadron to be disbanded in 2007.

  • RAF Coltishall in Norfolk will close by the end of 2008.


The massive manpower reduction for the RAF will probably mean the axeing of the RAF Regiment - who provide ground defence, anti-air and specailist instructor capabilities for the RAF - this role will have to be passed on to an already overstratched army.

Whilst the culling of the Jaguar squadrons was expected the loss of the Tornado Squadron was a surprise.

The whilst the loss of 6 major frontline warships was expected it is a surprise that is it is the newer Type 23 frigates that are being axed and not the older Type 22 frigates (of which there are 4) prehaps as the these ships are nearing the end of their life cycle they will be removed from the fleet as well without replacement meaning that in 'real terms' as the Chancellor would put it the navy in fact loses 10 major frontline warships, at theleast they did not lose any submarine and are still hopefully going to get the proposed 2 future aircraft carriers (though I expect they will be in the region of 40,000 tons and not the 60,000 tons as originally planned).

I am still skepitcal that the army are not going to lose manpower during the proposed restructing and axeing of 4 battalions, we will see as the army is very overstretched at the moment.

Hopefully we will get further details shortly.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
After reading Geoff Hoons statement have some further info for you

Full paper

  • New focus on new technologies and Network Enabled Capability.

  • The balanced Land force of the future will consist of 2 heavy armoured brigades, 3 medium weight brigades, based around the Future Rapid Effects System family of medium weight vehicles FRES and a light brigade, in addition to the Air Assault and Commando brigades.

  • The shift in emphasis to more agile, deployable Forces means that we will establish an additional three light armoured squadrons, re-role a Challenger 2 regiment into an armoured reconnaissance regiment and re-role an AS90 regiment into a light gun regiment. Later, we will equip three artillery regiments with the new Light Mobile Artillery Weapon System.

  • The first Apache attack helicopter will go operational later this year.

  • Introduction of the Brimstone air-to-ground missile, a new infantry anti-tank guided weapon (Javelin), and improved artillery rounds to allow precision indirect fire over the second half of the decade. Collectively, these improvements will be balanced by a reduction of seven Challenger 2 armoured squadrons and six AS 90 heavy artillery batteries by early 2007.

  • Digitised communications systems provide the network links - The entry into service of BOWMAN at the tactical level, and the CORMORANT and FALCON systems at the operational and strategic levels. Also continuing to invest in improved electronic warfare capabilities such as SOOTHSAYER and in developing stand-off sensors, such as the WATCHKEEPER Unmanned Air Vehicle.

  • Over the next ten years, plan to invest some 3Bn in helicopter platforms to replace and enhance existing capability.

  • Reduce our overall investment in ground-based air defence meeting the requirement in future from 24 Rapier fire units and 84 High Velocity Missile launchers.

  • Rapier will be deployed by the Army with the RAF Regiment relinquishing the role. Ground Based Air Defence will be commanded by a new Joint HQ within the RAF Command Structure.

  • Procurement of additional missiles worth around 180M for the High Velocity Missile System.

  • The overall requirement for Infantry battalions will be reduced from 40 to 36.

  • A new structure will be based on regiments of 2 or more battalions, in largely fixed locations.

  • Two new large aircraft carriers, deploying the Joint Combat Aircraft, will provide the heart of our future ability to project military power from the sea. We are investing heavily in our amphibious capability HMS ALBION and BULWARK, which was delivered to the Royal Navy last week.

  • Future area air defence and command and control requirements will be met by force of 8 Type 45 destroyers. With these hugely capable ships currently under construction, we plan to pay off our oldest Type 42 destroyers, HMS CARDIFF, NEWCASTLE and GLASGOW by the end of 2005.

  • Decided to reduce our overall numbers of platforms optimised for anti-submarine warfare, while continuing to maintain our technological edge over potential opponents, including through the introduction of the new low frequency active sonar 2087. We will pay off three Type 23 frigates, HMS NORFOLK, MARLBOROUGH and GRAFTON by March 2006.

  • Maritime reconnaissance needs to be met with 16 Nimrod MR2 aircraft. The requirement could in future be met by a fleet of around 12 more capable Nimrod MRA4 aircraft.

  • We require a total of 8 nuclear attack submarines. The introduction of the new ASTUTE class boats will hugely enhance the SSN contribution across the spectrum of operations. We are also investing in the latest generation of Tomahawk land attack missiles

  • Against the changing threat we need to retain a balanced force of 8 HUNT class and 8 SANDOWN class vessels. We plan to pay-off HMS INVERNESS, BRIDPORT AND SANDOWN by April 2005.

  • The improved security situation in Northern Ireland also makes it possible to pay off the Northern Ireland patrol vessels, HMS BRECON, DULVERTON and COTTESMORE, by April 2007.

  • The new Storm Shadow long-range air to surface missile proved itself as a world-beater during the recent Gulf War. New precision guided Paveway IV bombs will further enhance our overall capability in the short-term.

  • reduce the number of the air defence Tornado F3 squadrons by one, and bring forward the withdrawal of 2 Jaguar squadrons to 2006, with the final Jaguar squadron to be disbanded in 2007.

  • close RAF Coltishall airfield by December 2006. We will also be undertaking an extensive review of our future requirement for airfields.

  • intend to buy the current fleet leased fleet of fourC-17s at the conclusion of the current lease arrangement and to purchase one additional aircraft bringing our C-17 fleet up to five aircraft.




posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   
OMG you guys need to start a coup de tat and get your leaders out of office if you want to have a military left only 2 divisions wow and the decommissioning of vessels that are not even 10 years old!



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
SEE thats what happens when you leave polititions in charge of the military! why cant we get a military man in there getting the MOD some decent money instead of the dregs from the gov



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I'm almost stuned. Lets hope that the UK doesn't layoff their special forces. Are they going to sell the ships or just scrap them.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
at this rate we'll only have speical forces as our army.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Well at least your army will be superior one-on-one as a side effect. And what does Tony Blair plan on spending the savings on.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Well at least your army will be superior one-on-one as a side effect. And what does Tony Blair plan on spending the savings on.

oh hes planning on giveing the 2.2 billion to the MOD,but in truth it wil be about 1.1 billion becase the GOV will think up some great scheme like the dome,to ruin the money.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Well at least your army will be superior one-on-one as a side effect. And what does Tony Blair plan on spending the savings on.

oh hes planning on giveing the 2.2 billion to the MOD,but in truth it wil be about 1.1 billion becase the GOV will think up some great scheme like the dome,to ruin the money.

What was the point of the dome anyhow. Whats it even for. Is it some kind of convention center or something? The MOD needs more than a billion or two to stay operation. 2.2 billion is pretty small if you want to keep an army running. I hope that the UK doesn't need to resort to private military contractors.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 07:28 PM
link   
i really hope blair loses the elections this time cause frankly he sucks.
well we could just stop sending out the royal navy and make them just a defense force and make them stay in our waters that would save cash.
the dome is really just a big convention/musuem place. but it failed misreably i heard they sold it and its being turned into a football park but no confirms yet

[edit on 19/07/04 by devilwasp]



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I haven't read every reply to this thread, so I apologize if this has been covered...

When I saw the title to this thread, I thought it referred to the moderators here at ATS, and would say that they had to take a cut in their six-figure paychecks.

I was all prepared to jump to their defense and say that they are worth every penny!

There goes another chance to kiss up.





posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I haven't read every reply to this thread, so I apologize if this has been covered...

When I saw the title to this thread, I thought it referred to the moderators here at ATS, and would say that they had to take a cut in their six-figure paychecks.

I was all prepared to jump to their defense and say that they are worth every penny!

There goes another chance to kiss up.




This will keep me laughing for hours very funny post I am sure you will get some free points for the great admiration for the mods


Also about the British military I think it would be much more affective as a defensive army it is only being used in large offensive operations cuz the American pressure



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:39 AM
link   
The British armed forces need to be both defensive and offensive. We should be able to operate on our own or with allies.

Too bad a lot of PMs don't stand up to Americans because of the 'special relationship'.


See what happens when bases close - news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 22/7/04 by Hyperen]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   

From the BBC
Changes to the armed forces would make them "more suited to 21st Century challenges", Chief of Defence Staff General Sir Michael Walker has said.

Sir Michael said the changes would "allow Britain's armed forces to remain... the best in the world".

Army head General Sir Mike Jackson said they would provide "increased capability, greater continuity".


news.bbc.co.uk...

Hmmm. Increased capability eh?
I'm not buying it.

We need cuts and lose 20,000 jobs to remain the best armed forces in the world?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I'm almost stuned. Lets hope that the UK doesn't layoff their special forces. Are they going to sell the ships or just scrap them.


The Defence paper states that Special Forces is one of the areas it intends to re-focus spending on



We are increasing the strength of our Special Forces and investing in new equipment for them. These are significant enhancements, but the details of these changes must remain classified.


So some good newsat least in certain areas - but at what expense


[edit on 22-7-2004 by Popeye]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 06:03 AM
link   
WHY ARE WE SPENDING MORE MONEY ON THE BLOODY SF ?? we already have the elite and its not gona change soon so why dont we just keep the military the same FOR ONE DECADE with out axeing half a dozen well trained soldiers.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
WHY ARE WE SPENDING MORE MONEY ON THE BLOODY SF ?? we already have the elite and its not gona change soon so why dont we just keep the military the same FOR ONE DECADE with out axeing half a dozen well trained soldiers.


I know...British Special Forces don't have a problem. They have all the weapons and equipment they want while the other forces get job losses.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join