back to article Sort your spending habits out, UK Ministry of Defence told over £20bn black hole

Britain's Ministry of Defence's spending plans for the next decade "lack cost control" and contain a £20bn black hole, according to the House of Commons' influential Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The committee's latest report into the MoD's finances follows years of public concern as a largely static or shrinking defence …

Page:

  1. }{amis}{
    FAIL

    No Hope

    Having had to spend some time in MOD Abby Wood for my sins there is no hope of the MOD ever fixing their budget.

    They have the frying pan of budgets shrinking in real terms and the fire of ever-growing costs of military shiny, and in the middle you have a bunch of idiots who learned everything they need to learn in life at [Insert Private School Tie of Choice Here] and as such have no understanding of what money is and where it comes from.

    All in all the situation is a total disaster.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: No Hope

      On a related note, this is your annual reminder that the agency responsible for buying all of this kit is about three times the size of Her Majesty's Corps of Royal Marines, and well over half the size of the RAF and RN. And that's before we start counting the endless numbers of bodies from BAE and their merry band of subcontractors actually designing and building things.

      So if you ever wonder where all your money's going, you can start looking there.

    2. macjules

      Re: No Hope

      Well, if you have worked there then you will know that if the MoD is accused of hiding a £20Bn hole in their finances then it is far more likely to be a £40Bn commitment that they have entered into. Luckily the USA transparency on the F35 allows us to get a vague guesstimate of what they are actually up to.

      The golden rule with government finance: the actual amount is always at least 1.5 times higher.

      (©Capita 2018)

  2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    Simple solution

    Have a war.

    Nobody complains about defence spending during a war

    It could also distract public attention from Europe (note don't have a war in Europe)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Simple solution

      note don't have a war in Europe

      Why not? Plenty of local grudges to settle, plenty of historic animosity, lots of varied territory to make the fighting more varied, some even worth fighting to own. To judge by the two last parties, when Europe holds a war, it is so popular that most of the world want to join in.

      And it would make a change to the usual dull, sandy places that have been fought over for the past half century. Those places might even want to return the compliment by sending a few divisions of troops.

      Now, if the Germans could invade some adjacent territory,. or the Serbs shoot somebody we've never heard of that could be a suitable excuse. Or maybe the UK should guarantee the Italian sovereignty of Mont Blanc, on the basis the French would kick off about the matter. Or if the mainland Europeans aren't willing to participate, England could just declare war on Scotland, and invoke NATO article 5.

      1. Aladdin Sane

        Re: Simple solution

        How to solve the Brexit negotiation problems? Reclaim the historic territories in what is now France.

        1. ZSn

          Re: Simple solution

          Or us Celts kick out those $^&%ing Angles and Saxons and reclaim our isles. Bloody foreigners coming over here...

          1. Pen-y-gors

            Re: Simple solution

            @ZSn

            Don't forget the Jutes! And the Danes, and the Vikings, (bloody vikings!) and the Normans, and the Huguenots (Farage!)...

            1. pɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
              Alert

              Re: Simple solution

              Or us Celts kick out those $^&%ing Angles and Saxons and reclaim our isles. Bloody foreigners coming over here...

              Don't forget the Jutes! And the Danes, and the Vikings, (bloody vikings!) and the Normans, and the Huguenots (Farage!)...

              well if a few lines in a book written nearly 2000 years ago about a tribe a couple of thousand years before who was promised some lands for them to live on by a mysteriously absent magician, that has a resemblance to Charlton Heston, gave a bunch of displaced people in the late 1940's, that didn't feel safe going home alter some world wide fisty cuffs, the right to occupy some lands in the eastern Med.

              Then we have to welcome all invaders right to stay wherever they want......

              1. BebopWeBop

                Re: Simple solution

                Bloody Celts - us Beakers got a bad deal.

                1. cantankerous swineherd

                  Re: Simple solution

                  there we were, neandering in our valley and then some sapient homos turned up. ruined our whole day I can tell you.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Simple solution

              "And the Danes, and the Vikings, (bloody vikings!) and the Normans, and the Huguenots (Farage!)"

              Well, that's me stuffed then. Just include Jewish immigrants from the Netherlands and I'll have to be sent back where I came from in quite a lot of pieces. My wife gets to stay unless the Beaker People get to have a say in the matter.

              Though don't forget a lot of the Normans were really Vikings who had spent longer in Northern France than expected on their European tour.

              Come to think of it, if you send everybody back where they came from the defence budget will be a lot smaller owing to the shrunken population. But it should pay for quite a lot of spears and woad, which might even be more useful against realistic threats than the F35.

              1. Stork Silver badge

                Re: Simple solution

                If everybody were sent back where they (or their ancestors) came from, Africa would get rather crowded and the rest quite empty...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Simple solution

        England could just declare war on Scotland

        No that's something I could get behind......

      3. Chris G

        Re: Simple solution

        There's a fair chance the Spanish government would welcome an annexation of Catalunya.

        1. ciaran

          Re: Simple solution

          False flag operation against Gibralta, then declare "justified" war on spain.

      4. Andy The Hat Silver badge

        Re: Simple solution

        No, I quite like haggis and I don't want to be tarred as a traitor so an Anglo-Scottish skirmish could be bad form. What about having a severe squabble with the Isle of Dogs instead? It would even work - start squabbling about whelk exports, UK sets up blockade for a week (we've nearly got enough ships but we can rope in local Oligarcs' yachts to fill the gaps and it would be a multinational expeditionary force ...) As sovereign territory the UK could arrange a 'Berlin Airlift' to deliver jellied eels and Red Bull to save it's citizens and HM Government could take the credit for everything!

        Anonymise everything by calling the island "Pimblico" and there may be even be a film in it ... :-)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Simple solution

      Have a war.

      Isn't that what the politicians have been trying for with all the anti Russia rhetoric?

  3. Pen-y-gors

    Another wee problem

    At the moment HMG manage to effectively attribute a proportion of defence spending to the budgets for Wales and Scotland.

    Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales, there is unlikely to be any strong demand for a fleet of carriers, nukes and strike aircraft bearing the Saltire or Ddraig Goch. Both will be looking to go more down the Irish route, which has a per-capita defence spending of approx 20% of the UK's.

    Some will say that leaves the Celtic countries unable to defend themselves against attack. True. But 1) who is going to attack them? and 2) if it was the UK/USA/Russians how much would we have to spend developing and deploying nuclear weapons to defeat them? Spending which would be at the expense of schools, hospitals, infrastructure, pensions etc - all the things that make it worth having a society for anyway.

    So good luck to the English and their over-inflated and largely pointless 'defence' budget. But count me out.

    1. }{amis}{
      Thumb Down

      Re: Another wee problem

      Given that the 2 White Elephants New aircraft carriers were commissioned primarily as a bribe to keep as Scottish MP employed I think that Scotland would miss the military budgets.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Another wee problem

        I think that Scotland would miss the military budgets.

        As an independent country the SNP would be able to come up with any number of socialist make work projects, paid for by a budget deficit.

        Not much different to how Westminster funds defence now.

      2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: Another wee problem

        Err... Why do you think the Dreadnought class sub is not a white elephant?

        It is the only nuclear missile submarine in the world which does not have any other armament besides ICBMs. Yanks have torpedoes and cruise missiles on Ohio class, Russians have torpedoes and cruise missiles on the Borei class, so have the french on the Trioumphant and the Chinese are building the same spec.

        The only ones which, once again, are building a single use white elephant is UK. A sub which cannot even fend for itself or give the fleet a hand in need.

        So that is not 2 white elephants. Six. At least. If we add here the destroyers which have absolutely no anti-ship armament that will make it double digits.

        This is just on the white elephant front. On the "idiot in charge" front we can add the lack of landing ship(s), lack of helicopter carrier(s), lack of... While there is a long tradition of idiots in the Admiralty in peace time, the current lot probably beats the record especially as far as "we have infinite amount of money so nothing will be multi-purpose" is concerned.

        1. macjules

          Re: Another wee problem

          Ssh. You forget that the main Royal Navy budget is spent upon copious amounts of gin. Sod the technology bit - that's just for the engineering monkeys like the RAF.

        2. Rudeboy

          Re: Another wee problem

          Errrrr.....this is spectacularly wrong.

          The Dreadnought Class will have 6 Torpedo Tubes and will be armed with Spearfish Torpedo's....

          All US Ohio Class carry Torpedo's. They DO NOT carry ICBM's and Cruise Missiles. 4 Ohio Class had their Trident missile systems removed. These were replaced with Tomahawk cruise missile VLS cells. Their designation changed from SSBN to SSGN. The US has the luxury of another 16 Ohio Class to undertake the SSBN mission.

          The Triomphant carrys Torpedo's only. No cruise missiles. The MdCN has not, and will not be fitted.

          The Borei's also only carry Torpedoes. No cruise missiles. They do have the Starfish, which is a missile that delivers a torpedo. But that is all.

          It's clear you do not know the first thing about the use and deployment of SSBN's, with comments like "give the fleet a hand in need."....that's embarrassing. Please stop.

          1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

            Re: Another wee problem

            The Borei's also only carry Torpedoes. And torpedo tube launched cruise missiles including nuclear armed. Read the spec on RPK-2 before commenting.

            The Dreadnought Class will have 6 Torpedo Tubes and will be armed with Spearfish Torpedo's....

            Not in the official spec. Official spec lists Trident only. If 6 torpedo tubes have made it as a late addition, that has not made it to all sources yet.

            All US Ohio Class carry Torpedo's. And they can launch cruise missile from the torpedo tube. Same as US attack submarines.

            It's clear you do not know the first thing about the use and deployment of SSBN's, with comments like "give the fleet a hand in need."

            Count the number of subs UK has - attack and SSBNs. Count the number of times it was down to zero on South Atlantic watch (where there always should be one for "obvious" reasons). So the case where there may be a need to torpedo a second-third hand 50 year old light cruiser in neutral waters may still arise you know and with the current active sub fleet numbers beggars cannot be choosers. Ditto for whacking it with a cruise missile.

        3. Trigonoceps occipitalis

          Re: Another wee problem

          @Voland's right hand

          There is logic to having the nuclear missile boats "one role only". For good or ill they are the absolute last line of defence for the UK. There is only one boat guaranteed to be on station at any time. It may be a good thing if it cannot be diverted to another task, possibly making it more vulnerable to enemy action.

          Preventing admirals and politicians from playing with "their" train set is, in this instance, a good thing.

          Self defence can be a two edged sword. The process of firing a torpedo will give the enemy a very good fix of the bomber's location.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

            Re: Another wee problem

            Preventing admirals and politicians from playing with "their" train set is, in this instance, a good thing.

            Oh, definitely - with you on that.

            My point was different - the overall "specialized white elephant" building across all of the Navy and to a lesser extent other forces.

            If you look at USA, Russia, French, Chinese subs even the nuclear deterrent ones carry torpedoes and can launch cruise missiles out of their torpedo tubes. While that is not their normal function they can be in extreme circumstances pressed to give a hand in need as a normal attack sub.

            The official spec for the Drednaught when I looked it up did not list any torpedo tubes so it looked like yet another typical Navy dedicated white elephant. Just like the destroyers and frigates which can do only AA or only ASW and have no anti-ship or land attack capability. Just like the two ultra-bespoke special carrier white elephants which have no aircraft for them and can launch only one ultra bespoke model of aircraft. Just like...

            In this day and age even a Tier 1 fleet, army or air force cannot afford dedicated white elephants. At the same time - this is the only thing UK is building and buying. No wonder the budget does not add up.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Another wee problem

          Where do I start with this one...

          1. Dreadnought has torpedo tubes; although if you're ever in the situation to use them something's gone badly wrong.

          2. The "Yank boats" you mention are actually re-purposed into SSGNs - i.e. no longer carrying ballistic missiles but "General" purpose which makes use of the vertical missile tubes to launch TLAM and other stuff.

          3. There are two classes of nuclear-powered submarines in the Royal Navy: SSBNs - trident ballistic-missile carrying bombers (US missile but with British nuclear warhead), and SSNs - multi-purpose attack boats performing intelligence gathering, coastal water protection, land-attack (TLAM), underwater defence (torpedos), carrier task-force protection (soon), and more besides.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Another wee problem

      Remind me how many jobs there are in the Scottish bases, and the ports, and the contractors.

      Shall we take one base...

      Oh look, 11,000 jobs.

      "Faslane is the second largest single-site employer in Scotland, after the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow with around 11,000 jobs directly and indirectly reliant on the base."

      1. Pen-y-gors

        Re: Another wee problem

        @lost all faith

        If it's jobs you want, you can build and staff a lot of schools and hospitals for the price of the jobs created in looking after nuclear subs and building white elephants.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Another wee problem

      So good luck to the English and their over-inflated and largely pointless 'defence' budget. But count me out.

      Pen-y-gors, how did you get (at time of writing) five downvotes for that? Simple matter of fact.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Another wee problem

        Pen-y-gors, how did you get (at time of writing) five downvotes for that? Simple matter of fact.

        A few more by the time i read it,.. but its more opinion than fact.

        1. Pen-y-gors

          Re: Another wee problem

          @Ledswinger Ta. (Now 9 down votes and rising)

          The basis is fact, or at least strong possibility - an independent England would almost certainly still be trying to re-live its dreams of imperial glory, and keeping up the same silly defence willy-waving as now, but it's a fact they would have a noticeably reduced tax base - due to losing the Scottish, Welsh and NI tax income, and the negative economic impact of Brexit.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      RE: Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales

      Why IndyWales ?

      Wales very publicly and firmly shackled it's fortunes to England by voting to leave the EU. Now we can both sink together.

      Scotland, on the other had (a) clearly voted to Remain, and (b) was promised that the UK would keep Scotland in the EU. As far as I (as an English voter) am concerned they're entitled to rerun the independence question in the light of new facts. And that's where my political support would go from south of the border.

      1. Pen-y-gors

        Re: RE: Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales

        Why IndyWales?

        Because every day makes it clearer that Wales would be a better, happier and wealthier country when it can run its own affairs. How effective has 800 years of English rule been for the fortunes of Wales? West Wales is the poorest area in Northern Europe! (Inner London is the richest)

        https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4575424

        - shows how lucky we are to be in the 'Union'. I'm sure some other people were talking about 'taking back control'. What was that about?

        As some wise person pointed out, how many countries have wished they had never become independent?

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: RE: Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales

          So Wales could return to be the globe bestriding colossus it was before the C12 ?

          1. Pen-y-gors

            Re: RE: Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales

            @YAAC

            I was thinking more of a happy globally-trading prosperous small country like Iceland, Lithuania, Ireland etc. rather than globally-bestriding. That's silly. Who wants to run an empire? And 11th Century Wales was at least on a par with 11th century Mercia and Wessex - and had a rather better legal system

            England really when to shit when those violent, feudal Norman bastards moved in.

          2. handleoclast

            Re: RE: Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales

            So Wales could return to be the globe bestriding colossus it was before the C12 ?

            The Welsh still have a global presence. There are between 1,500 and 5,000 Welsh speakers of Welsh descent in the Chubut Valley of Patagonia.

            1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

              Re: RE: Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales

              There are between 1,500 and 5,000 Welsh speakers of Welsh descent in the Chubut Valley of Patagonia.

              Attracted by the sheep or just really bad at map reading ?

              1. Pen-y-gors

                Re: RE: Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales

                Attracted by the sheep or just really bad at map reading ?

                Actually suckered in to emigrating by a highly fanciful advertising campaign, extolling the beauties and fertility of Patagonia. After they disembarked from the 'Mimosa' on a bleak desert shore it was a miracle that any of them survived. But they did, and the language is strong in Chubut and Trelew. As is the 'té galés y sus exquisitas tortas' (Welsh tea)

          3. Stork Silver badge

            Re: RE: Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales

            A country does not have to be a globe striding colossus to gain from independence. Iceland did well to break from Denmark during WW2, and I also think Ireland has done well in breaking from UK.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: RE: Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales

          As some wise person pointed out, how many countries have wished they had never become independent?

          A post which I agree with very much. Except that sentence above. After all, didn't Wales vote to remain vassals of the ever-broadening powers and increasing direct law making of Brussels?

          I can credit the advantage of a trade bloc, and policy alignment. But it's pretty clear that the EU have gone well beyond that, and don't intend to stop now. I suppose as an independent country you could vote to join the EU in your own right, affirm the primacy of EU law making over Welsh law making, and thus surrender your sovereignty again?

          1. JimmyPage Silver badge
            Stop

            Re: RE: Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales

            After all, didn't Wales vote to remain vassals of the ever-broadening powers and increasing direct law making of Brussels?

            Er, no, Wales didn't. Wales was a clear Leave majority. Like their cousins the English.

            Now Scotland and Northern Ireland on the other hand did vote Remain ....

          2. Pen-y-gors

            Re: RE: Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales

            @Ledswinger

            After all, didn't Wales vote to remain vassals of the ever-broadening powers and increasing direct law making of Brussels?

            Not exactly. They voted to leave the EU, but you have to allow for the fog of confusion generated by the referendum campaigns. You also need to allow for the sizeable contingent of retired English immigrants, many of whom are convinced they still live in the far-west Midlands, and have a tendency to support UKIP. I think we can be sure that with an independent England, and its permanent Tory government, they would be pleased to move back home.

            Recent survey suggested that only 14% of Welsh-speakers voted Leave. That may or may not be accurate.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: RE: Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales

              Recent survey suggested that only 14% of Welsh-speakers voted Leave. That may or may not be accurate relevant.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: RE: Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales

          West Wales is the poorest area in Northern Europe

          ... and the wealthiest nations per capita in Europe (Norway and Switzerland) aren't in the EU. They were also neutral in WW2 which saved a lot of money. If we'd done likewise, we'd be richer today and probably governed from central Europe, which is exactly what remainers want. Plus participation in a European army would have happened much sooner - how progressive!

          1. Joe Werner Silver badge

            Re: RE: Come IndyScotland and, hopefully, IndyWales

            Norway was occupied by ze krauts in WW2. They were one of Europe's poorest countries until the oil was found. Quite sensibly they put a lot of that income to the side for times when 1) there is no more oil or 2) prices go down. They had to use some of the money... dunno... two or so years ago. Norway got lucky with the oil. They mostly did not want to be part of the EU due to the fishery rights.

            And one thing: the EU was meant originally as a political union, not a purely economic free trade zone. Basically a political union to stop going to war with each other (mostly Germany and France (der Erbfeind!) ), which was quite en vogue in the 19th and 20th century.

          2. This post has been deleted by its author

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Another wee problem

      "So good luck to the English and their over-inflated and largely pointless 'defence' budget."

      Inadequate defence costs more, in the long run, particularly if you manage to be vaguely efficient about defence, rather than treating it as an industrial corporate/employment pork barrel.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like