Hmmmmm ?

[Clunkclick]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21271670

£16bn a year for 10 years, that's half the defence budget on equipment each year for 10 years ! - total capital spend (Including the estate and buildings) is usually only a third of the defence budget of £40bn.

Quote:

"The list includes nearly £36bn for a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines, almost £19bn for combat aircraft, and around £17bn for Royal Navy warships."

So that's the remainder of Astute and Trident Replacement for £36bn, F35, A400 and Taranis for £19bn and the carriers and Type 26 for £17 bn. So that's £72bn in total. What's the remaining £88bn, bearing in mind that some of the expenditure for the above programmes has already been written down ? That's a big contingency.

Don't think its flood defences somehow.

Nick

[Aspman]

We could buy better stuff of the shelf from the Yanks for much less but we've got to cowtoe to the defense industry and by over priced late crap.

[James I]

You have to laugh, we spend all this money on defence and toys of war yet our country is over run by invaders..........

[Fitz323]

Everything mentioned by the OP is very far from being crap. I've been in the armed forces for 15 years now with 10 of them working very closely with the yanks and I can assure you a lot of the kit we have comes out very favourable; especially the media despised Typhoon.

[Skully]

The more money spent on defense the better.

[Yearofthegoat]

What do you do with an SA80 when it jams?

Forward assist?

Grab an AK47 or an M16 and stay alive?

I'm a bit out if date but I hope to God that issue's been sorted.

Edited 31 January, 2013 by Yearofthegoat

[Fitz323]

Very out of date, we now have the A2 which has had a myriad of changes by H&K admittedly costly but now known to be one of the finest and most accurate 5.56 AR's in the world.

[Yearofthegoat]

13 years out of date. Had heard about the A2, but it's good to know it's actually there, and decent to use.

[Fitz323]

Still a bit heavy and only able to be fired from the right shoulder but with the multi use rails, forward grip, AGOG sight, carbine model, UGL etc its very very good. Just looks carp!!

[GentleGiant]

The other £88Bn is for inconsequentials like port, claret; office furnishings, or Brasso for all the medals the desk wallahs get issued.

[Fitz323]

Defence spending is not limited to actually buying new things. The cost of the upkeep of equipment, use of other nations training assets, replenishment of stock, fuel, munitions, uniform, pensions, medical, R&D, etc etc etc all eat a large chunk of the budget. Oh yea and all those medals!!!!

[Clunkclick]

Defence spending is not limited to actually buying new things. The cost of the upkeep of equipment, use of other nations training assets, replenishment of stock, fuel, munitions, uniform, pensions, medical, R&D, etc etc etc all eat a large chunk of the budget. Oh yea and all those medals!!!!

The £16bn each year for 10 years is capital spend i.e.usually one-off pfogrammes to buy new or replacement equipment, estate or buidlings. Ammo, fuel, pensions, medical treatment comes under the Revenue sccount i.e. Recurring spendind therefore won't be included in that £16 bn but will be drawn from the remainder of the annual defence buxget i.e. £20 bn

Over the last 10 years a fair bit of the forces kit e.g. Army vehicles and light weapons, eurofigbters, sentinel, Astutes, Type 45s, Landing ships, RFAs, forces bases and accomodation have been replaced or are being replaced with new kit against government funds which have already been committed in previous financial years. In the past tbis kit wazs usually good fior30 years but today, some of the heavy kit specifications are stating a life of 50-90 years (The latest american carrier, CVN 21, USS Gerald Ford, is lifed @ 90 years, the b-52 will be in service till 2045(Introduced 1955)) etc etc.

I'd be interested to learn what the extra £88 bn is to be spent on - an anti-ballistic missile system, robo-squaddie, particle beam weapons, more intelligence gathering thru sateillite. I tbink not.

More likely, a portion of it represents a contingency against anticipated cost overruns and the remainder is a "Dave" over-egging of the pudding to keep the vested interests at bay and will evapourate the day the next election is called.

Nick

Edited 31 January, 2013 by Clunkclick

[Fitz323]

35.8 billion pounds on seven Astute-class submarines and developing a replacement for the four Vanguard-class submarines used for Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent.

* 18.5 billion pounds on fighter jets, and UAVs, including the Joint Strike Fighter of which Britain has so far committed to buy 48, and the Typhoon, of which Britain has ordered 160.

* 17.4 billion pounds on two aircraft carriers, six new Type 45 destroyers and the development of the Type 26 Global Combat Ship.

* 13.9 billion pounds on air-to-air refuelling, passenger and heavy lift capability by leasing Airbus aircraft through the EADS-led AirTanker consortium.

* 12.3 billion pounds on armoured fighting vehicles.

* 12.1 billion pounds on helicopters.

* 11.4 billion pounds on assorted munitions.

= 124.1 billion pounds + 4.8 billion pound contingency allowance to manage unexpected cost increases, as well as an unallocated 8 billion pounds for future equipment needs = 136.9 billion out of a planned spend of 159 billion. Which leaves about 22 billion to mess about with !!!!!

Fitz

Edited 31 January, 2013 by Fitz323

[GentleGiant]

If the planned spend is £124bn, then just going by the Tanker overrun, the contingency needs to be AT LEAST £1Trillion; last time I checked we could by THREE Space Shuttles for the cost of ONE EADS refuelling tanker and THREE Nimitz class Nuclear carriers with full F/A 18 strike wings, Weasels and AWACs aircraft for less than the current cost of 2 conventional carriers (with no aircraft)

[Fitz323]

Not really, the current cost of the two carriers is in the region of approx 5 billion each. Nimitz was originally roughly half a billion but the cost to produce today including the upgrades since the seventies is estimated to be nearer 6 billion.

The jump in technology that our two carriers will have from not only what we had previously, but other nations forces is significant to explain the huge cost.

The new carrier is comparable in size (although not quite as big) as the super carriers the US has but the crew size is less than a third. That means a massive increase in technical spec which also cost a lot of cash.

I agree that cost overruns are unacceptable and manufacturers should sometimes be penalised for this bit the majority of cost overruns that I have seen have been down to significant customer spec increases or requirement changes.

[Aspman]

I remember getting to fire the L98-A1 (cadet version of the SA80), I broke 5 of them in one day. Mainly cocking levers but a couple of them just fell apart. Even at 14 we thought they were a PoS. But we were hacked of we didn't get to fire the older SLRs

Edited 1 February, 2013 by Aspman

[Fitz323]

L98 was a massive pile of poo, with the cocking handle too big and not built well enough. To be fair tho, it was a bit of an after thought and I never understood why they did not let cadets shoot the SA80 on repetition.

Cadets shooting SLR's...... That could be painful ;-)

[Richf]

The SLR was far from perfect, very heavy, cumbersome, still got stoppages so you had to turn the gas up meaning recoil made it harder to shoot

The early SA80 wasn't perfect but neither was the early M16

[Richf]

When I was a cadet we shot 303's , slrs and even had a go with a gpmg.

[Fitz323]

No one can argue a GPMG is a fantastic piece of kit.

[Clunkclick]

Not really, the current cost of the two carriers is in the region of approx 5 billion each. Nimitz was originally roughly half a billion but the cost to produce today including the upgrades since the seventies is estimated to be nearer 6 billion.

The jump in technology that our two carriers will have from not only what we had previously, but other nations forces is significant to explain the huge cost.

The new carrier is comparable in size (although not quite as big) as the super carriers the US has but the crew size is less than a third. That means a massive increase in technical spec which also cost a lot of cash.

I agree that cost overruns are unacceptable and manufacturers should sometimes be penalised for this bit the majority of cost overruns that I have seen have been down to significant customer spec increases or requirement changes.

Wiki says Nimitz class @ $5 billion and Ford Class @ $8 billion, thats £3.125 billion and £5 billion respectively at current exchange rate and these are 90,000 and 100,000 tonne ships compared to our prospective 60,000 tonners, and they are nucleur powered and the Ford class has electromagnetic catapult and is lifed to 90 years - Nimtz class is 50 (Ours won't be) - a lot more use, metal and technology for your money and without multiple layers of contractors appointed to do the job.

A400m, PFI deal, so the taxpayer is paying for all the inefficiencies (31 years in development, 4 years behind schedule, several billions over budget and not orginally spec'd for Afghan ops - Lord Gilbert's "****ing disaster") at private bond finance rates.

Compare and contrast to the De Havilland Mosquito development - a radical new design, from drawings to mass production on three continents, in wartime, using leading edge manufacturing techniques and innovative materials (Largely sourced abroad), whilst in bound shipping and factories under attack - 18 months.

Nick

Edited 1 February, 2013 by Clunkclick

[Fitz323]

How much do you think those carriers would actually cost now to build. You cannot compare the two at all. Our carriers are costing what they are costing. A carrier is also part if a group of surface and subsurface ships with our carrier needing less of those due to the tech it has, overall cost of the group has to be taken into consideration.

Take a look at cost estimates for the USA's carrier replacement program and that puts it into perspective.

Out carriers are not nuclear simply because they do not need to be and the cost of decommission for a nuclear carrier is hideous.

Fitz

[Clunkclick]

How much do you think those carriers would actually cost now to build. You cannot compare the two at all. Our carriers are costing what they are costing. A carrier is also part if a group of surface and subsurface ships with our carrier needing less of those due to the tech it has, overall cost of the group has to be taken into consideration.

Take a look at cost estimates for the USA's carrier replacement program and that puts it into perspective.

Out carriers are not nuclear simply because they do not need to be and the cost of decommission for a nuclear carrier is hideous.

Fitz

Whereas, of course, a lifetime supply of bunker oil and RFAs to ferry it around and dockside refuel port charges are logistically and strategically easy to get and cheap as chips.

Edited 1 February, 2013 by Clunkclick

[Fitz323]

Someone more skilled at cost calculations than I am considers it cheaper.

[Clunkclick]

I think the whole approach to purchasing is rotten from the top down in the MOD - thank god I'm out now.

The number of cases I'm aware of where specification creep and manipulation of the purchasing rules (Tax avoidance rather than evasion) , principally led by the people in green, and usually after the contract was let, led to cost escalation of massive proportions. Most of the leaders of the IPTs are military. A large number of the early retiree greens, nowadays, go to work for contractors supplying the MOD.

What do you thinks going to happen ?

Even at my lowly level in defence purchasing, the one thing you were told not to do, in order to maintain some negoitating advantage with contractors, was to not let them know how much money is actually allocated for a specific requirement, otherwise the only bids you get in will be ones which consume the whole of the financial allocation. Surprise !

So what do successive Ministers do . . triumphally announce how much they've got to spend over the next 10 years . . dummies. Its an open invitation, as Major Bloodknock of Goons show used to say to new regimental recruits "Now, open your wallet and repeat, after me, the regimental moto . .""Help yourself", Thank you."

They give the lead, the lower downs follow, through the unofficial and social channels.

Nick

Edited 1 February, 2013 by Clunkclick