Defence review 2 - Further Cuts being considered

[anonymous-user]

According to Financial Times today. To save a further £1billion. Sounds like someone got their figures wrong first time around!!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE70J1612011012...

[Jim the Sunderer]

They shouldn't have wasted billions on getting 'the best' fliers 12 years late when all our enemies still have propellers.

[Dixie68]

They should sort out the rampant rank inflation in the officer classes. The Navy having more Admirals than ships is a bloody ridiculous situation, as it is with the RAF where a Wing Commander runs a squadron, a Squadron Leader runs a flight etc.
Pension them off. Although someone with the rank of Admiral retires on a full pension (i.e. his full service pay) at least we'd have a smaller bill in the future.

[disco1]

Jim the Sunderer said:

They shouldn't have wasted billions on getting 'the best' fliers 12 years late when all our enemies still have propellers.

Better still, they should have purchased twice possibly 3 times the amount of superhornets for the same money they've blown on Typhoon and had them delivered ages ago. 80% going to RAF, 20% to for the new carriers.

[siko]

disco1 said:

Jim the Sunderer said:

They shouldn't have wasted billions on getting 'the best' fliers 12 years late when all our enemies still have propellers.

Better still, they should have purchased twice possibly 3 times the amount of superhornets for the same money they've blown on Typhoon and had them delivered ages ago. 80% going to RAF, 20% to for the new carriers.

Woah woah woah there....stand fast with the common sense approach to doing stuff - that would not keep BAe in business now would it ?

[Mikeyboy]

siko said:

disco1 said:

Jim the Sunderer said:

They shouldn't have wasted billions on getting 'the best' fliers 12 years late when all our enemies still have propellers.

Better still, they should have purchased twice possibly 3 times the amount of superhornets for the same money they've blown on Typhoon and had them delivered ages ago. 80% going to RAF, 20% to for the new carriers.

Woah woah woah there....stand fast with the common sense approach to doing stuff - that would not keep BAe in business now would it ?

I think as Philip Green said the real problem is that the Government forgets its the customer and a huge one at that for some of these companies. When BAE said it wanted punitive cancellation clauses for aircraft projects it should have been told to get lost and reminded that they have an obligation to deliver on time.

Conversely I can see that the manufacturers have been bitten hard by governments changing their minds on waht to build but with aircraft you can always find a market for the end product.

[LeeME3]

Dixie68 said:

They should sort out the rampant rank inflation in the officer classes. The Navy having more Admirals than ships is a bloody ridiculous situation, as it is with the RAF where a Wing Commander runs a squadron, a Squadron Leader runs a flight etc.
Pension them off. Although someone with the rank of Admiral retires on a full pension (i.e. his full service pay) at least we'd have a smaller bill in the future.

Well you'll be pleased to hear that's pretty much what is going to happen.

With regard to senior ranks pensions, it's actually half-pay in lieu of pension. It goes back to pre-Napoleonic times when all officer ranks were put onto half-pay during periods of inactivity so that they could be recalled as necessary - this has remained with Flag/General/Air-rank officers through to modern times.

I agree that it's an anachronism, who's going to recall a seventy-five year old half-pay Air Marshall - they should be on a pension the same as everyone else? But it's not full pay any more.

Edited by LeeME3 on Friday 21st January 13:44