Mercury opinion: Army cuts are sad but inevitable
Many of us will not much like the Government's plans to further cut the Army. For a nation with such a proud military history, it is a bitter pill to swallow.
However, we have to ask the simple question, what is the alternative?
The UK – as we are all only too aware – is up to its eyes in debt.
In fact, we spend more on interest payments on that debt than we do on the entire defence budget.
****Best Deals**** Van Insurance for 17-24 Yr Old Drivers - Contact Insure365 on 01782 898188
Terms: 1 Voucher Per Customer
Contact: 01782 898188
Valid until: Friday, July 19 2013
The big three areas of Government spending are welfare, health and education.
However, they are very difficult to cut without causing widespread public outrage and the possibility of significant harm.
That means that major savings have to be found from the smaller areas of the budget – and one of these is defence.
The total defence budget is around £40 billion, with spending on the Army accounting for some £7.3 billion.
Even now – after many decades of cutbacks – that is still a significant amount.
It is certainly a great deal more than the vast majority of countries spend.
There are good reasons for that. We are a key member of Nato, for instance, and we have, often controversially, tended to punch above our weight in terms of getting involved in international crises.
But even after these cuts, we will still retain a robust Army which numbers 82,000 troops, with the number of reservists doubling to 30,000.
We will still be able to send troops to trouble-spots swiftly and effectively.
We will not, however, be able to maintain long tours of duty, which is probably, given recent history, a good thing.
The reality is that the country has to rein in public spending or it will go the way of Greece. And that means making some hard choices.
It is simply no longer possible to have a large standing Army, as well as the NHS, schools, pensions and all the rest.
The Government's plan is not the death knell of the Army and its long and proud history – as some commentators will claim.
But tough times mean things have to change.
Comments
by ecatflap
Friday, July 20 2012, 4:14PM
“"You carry on with your claptrap, Sorengadfly. You and your ilk are DENIERS!!
Having Checked the Facts Sorengadfly listed .I think you should check them before resorting to Abuse or Do you just believe what YOU want to believe”
by Sorengadfly
Sunday, July 08 2012, 5:26PM
“Vince Cable: banks are 'throttling' UK economic recovery Banks' anti-business culture and 'obsession with short-term profits' is harming the economy, warns business secretary...”
by Sorengadfly
Sunday, July 08 2012, 5:23PM
“March 2012 More trouble with aircraft carriers.May 2012 Government u-turn on planes for carriers costs 100million?
As at march 2011 forecast cost £12 billion for carriers with planes? ( initial estimate £2.8 billion, when approved £4.1 billion)"
This Shower of incompetent Hired-hands (bankrolled by the hedgefunders & Bankers who are the same people up to their necks in selling Toxic Mortgages - This 'Hireling Govt' is a SHAM, A LIE, it is not a Government it is a shabby collection of Quislings and Traitors to the Nation and the whole of the Political system including the Conservatives... who must now recognise this shower for what they are... opportunistic rejects from PR and other disreputable outlets of arrogance, ignorance and GREED... Bankrolled by insidious/scandalous Bankers...”
by Sorengadfly
Sunday, July 08 2012, 5:16PM
“Deloitte LLP sum up why the MOD cannot cut costs.
Fragmented organisation, ineffective strategic leadership, inadequate performance accountability, laborious management process, outdated people model, underpowered commercial capabilities. Phew!
This adds to the argument for scrapping all of the military and having a token defence force."”
by Sorengadfly
Sunday, July 08 2012, 5:14PM
“Eastonian - Faced with independent FACTs you revert to 'Ostrich mode' and make yourself look rather silly, if not wilfully ignorant:
Eastonian: ""You carry on with your claptrap, Sorengadfly. You and your ilk are DENIERS!
I present the 10 worst overspends at the MOD, INFO: Nov 2011 National Audit Office and Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee updates added by BAAT... and the Financial Times also found that The MOD will spend £1.2 billion on 3 surveillance aircraft that are older than the planes they are replacing, having scrapped the Nimrod project! Unbelievable...
Your response is a quite pathetic.”
by Kohelet
Saturday, July 07 2012, 11:07PM
“Eastonian
Not deniars. There is a deficitm Labour spent to much, but this would normally have been manageable but then had to bale out the banks.
So cuts yes. Again, respond to the other countries in dire straightrs”
by Eastonian
Saturday, July 07 2012, 12:09PM
“You carry on with your claptrap, Sorengadfly. You and your ilk are DENIERS!!
So, according to you we haven't got a deficit and no cuts anywhere need to be made. What a ruddy joke!!”
by Sorengadfly
Saturday, July 07 2012, 11:47AM
“Eastonian & LM - These are the FACTS... You add up the cost of this incompetent Hirling Govt!
These are only the 10 best known examples, the Financial Times also found that The MOD will spend £1.2 billion on 3 surveillance aircraft that are older than the planes they are replacing, having scrapped the Nimrod project! Unbelievable.
Deloitte LLP sum up why the MOD cannot cut costs.
Fragmented organisation, ineffective strategic leadership, inadequate performance accountability, laborious management process, outdated people model, underpowered commercial capabilities. Phew!
This adds to the argument for scrapping all of the military and having a token defence force.”
by Sorengadfly
Saturday, July 07 2012, 11:45AM
“9. Type 45 destroyers. The Royal navy's six new destroyers are possibly the most sophisticated warships ever built, claim F.T. The ships however are so expensive that the original order for 12 has been halved. The contract was given to BAE and Vosper Thornycroft (VT) before they had agreed to work together, which resulted in the MOD doing more of the contract than intended. The MOD were liable for costs if there were delays which of course there were.
Expected cost £4.75 billion Actual £5.66 billion ( for half the original quantity!) Three year delay, ships being commissioned.
10. A400M. A military transport aircraft was conceived 30 years ago as a European project to replace the C-130 hercules. Jacques Chirac President of France insisted on a European engine designed from scratch instead of an American off the shelf engine. There have been multiple delays and the budget has increased from Euro 15 billion to 20 billion. The UK has refused to pump more money into the project and will take less planes instead.
Project started 1982 expected in service 2015. for UK initial expected cost of 22 planes £2.6 billion. Nov 2011 forecast cost £3.11 billion (as at march 2012 3 less planes!)”
by Sorengadfly
Saturday, July 07 2012, 11:40AM
“6. Landing ship dock. Briefly. In 2000 shipbuilders, Swan Hunter undercut their rivals to win a £150 million contract for two Royal Navy support vessels. BAE told the MOD they needed work or one of their shipyards would close, so in 2001 BAE were given a contract to build two more ships based on Swan Hunter design. It transpired Swan Hunter were incapable of completing the contract and the contract was transferred to BAE. The Swan Hunter shipyard shut.
7. Eurofighter Typhoon. First conceived as the fighter to attack Russian MiGs and tanks. The first 'European fighter' jet was proposed and the UK, Germany.Italy and Spain formed a group to build it. Despite its maiden flight in 1994, delays caused the first RAF aircraft to be delivered in 2003 and began active duty in 2007. According to the National Audit Office the first cost estimate was £7 billion which rose in many jumps to £18.16 billion. (NAO Nov 2011) Guardian quote a figure of £20.2 billion.
8. Astute Nuclear subs. The MOD awarded a contract for 3 Astute Class nuclear powered subs in 1995 but BAE admitted in 2002 thatat the project was seriously over budget and behind schedule. This was blamed on difficulties in using computer aided design ( lack of skills) The MOD was forced to pump an additional £430 million into the project and BAE took a £250 million hit. The MOD has bought a further 3 Astute subs with the government keen on one more!
The Strategic Defence and Security Review delayed the Successor nuclear deterrent submarine in-service date to 2018. To avoid a production gap in the submarine construction industry, and to further save costs in the short term, the Astute programme was slowed. This has added £200 million to the forecast cost in 2011, and delayed the introduction of the Astute submarines by an average of 28 months. Submarines will now take over a decade each to complete. ( from NAO report) Initial estimate at approval £4.4 billion, current forecast for 6 subs £5.72 billion NAO Nov 2011”