Michael Smith
Win Sky+HD for a year and a trip to Barcelona
The Ministry of Defence is being forced to slash its planned budget by £1.5 billion a year over the next three years, leaving the armed forces vying with each other to hold on to their new ships, aircraft and armoured vehicles.
The Royal Navy's two planned aircraft carriers, central to the armed forces' capabilities, will be postponed by up to two years in an attempt to delay paying much of the £4 billion bill for as long as possible.
The government announced in July it was increasing the defence budget by 1.5% a year taking it to £36.9 billion in 2010-2011.
It also committed itself to building the two giant carriers, a new series of armoured vehicles for the army and the new nuclear deterrent.
But the black hole in the defence budget is so large — close to £2 billion this year and as much as £5 billion over the next three years — that the budget increase will not prevent cuts.
While spending on a new nuclear deterrent is certain to go ahead, both the carriers and the new vehicles are again under threat.
Growing rows between the three services over the budget are set to escalate over the next few weeks as discussions known as "planning round 08" are finalised.
The budget problems are caused by the costs of a number of large equipment projects coinciding in this year's budget.
But they have been exacerbated by the Treasury's refusal to pay the full cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In theory, the Treasury is supposed to pay the full bill, but in reality it reclaims the costs of any new equipment required for operations from subsequent defence budgets.
One industry source said the result was that "salami-slicing is going on across the whole equipment budget" with every equipment project affected.
The Treasury, meanwhile, has renewed its offensive against the RAF's planned fleet of 232 Typhoon aircraft, insisting the final tranche of 88 aircraft is not needed.
It is also demanding reductions in the planned 138 Joint Strike Fighters the MoD is considering buying from America to fly off the two new carriers.
The RAF is also expected to lose two of its frontline Tornado GR4 ground attack squadrons as part of cuts to existing forces.
The Royal Navy is now resigned to losing a further five escort vessels, all four Type-22 frigates plus one of the relatively new Type-23 frigates, in the attempt to rein back costs.
The delays to the carriers and cuts in frigates are particularly worrying for the navy which has already accepted drastic cuts in its surface fleet in exchange for the government's promise that the carriers will be built.
The government cut the Royal Navy's frigates and destroyers to 32, the minimum required to carry out its tasks around the world, in 2000.
But despite subsequent wars and protests from naval chiefs this number has since been reduced to 25 on the promise of the two new carriers, forcing the navy to cut a number of tasks.
The latest cuts reduce the number of escorts to just 20, compared with a cold war peak of 139.
The two carriers, Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016 respectively, a timetable already delayed by two years. They are to be built in tandem with a new French navy carrier and any further delays beyond two years would place major doubts over whether they will be built at all.
In an attempt to sort out its procurement system and put the budget on a firmer basis, the MoD is this week advertising for an industry executive to take over as the chief operating officer of the Defence Equipment & Support organisation.
Explore your passion for food with the delights of Thai, Indian & Chinese cooking
In our new series, Tony Hawks takes a dry, wry look at modern life - junk mail, interminable meetings and snooty sales assistants
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
2007
£30,000
2006
£14,337
2008
£39,937
Great car insurance deals online
c.£75,000
GlosFirstmeansbusiness
Gloucestershire
£32,795 - £41,545
Universitry of Southampton
Southampton
£
£32,795 - £41,545
Universitry of Southampton
Southampton
Competitive Package
Npower
West Midlands
1 & 2 Bed apartments
From £249,995
Great Investment, River Views
Great Dubai Investment Opportunities
from £89,950
low-cost ownership homes in London
Las Vegas SALE!
£POA
With Ramblers Worldwide Holidays!
£POA
List your property with two leading travel websites
£POA
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Milkround Job Search - for graduate careers in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Scrapping the RAF is not the answer to the budget. If Gordon Brown had done a phased withdrawal, we wouldnt be in this mess.
Ben, Tring, England
MikeW,
That argument has been aired time and again since the 1930s. How would scrapping the RAF save any money? Their assets would still have to be staffed, procured, maintained and operated, except now by 2 services with no experience of doing so; do not be naive enough to think those in the RAF would simply put on an Army uniform. Think we've got retention problems now? You would lose a few top brass salaries at most, peanuts in the scheme of things.
Infighting between the services is not the solution, squabbling for the scraps from the governments table. More money is required, simple as that. This Government's greatest crime has been wading in to 2 conflicts and not supporting them financially. Strange how they find £30bn down the back of the sofa, almost a whole year's defence budget, when a plc employing predominantly in Labour heartlands goes bust!
Paul, Salisbury,
Let me get this straight, Northern Rock gets £50bn at the drop of a hat, meanwhile the Armed Forces have to undergo massive cut backs?
Why is Mr Brown being so harsh?
Carrie Miller, England,
The Way the U.K Govt, treats the U.K Armed Forces would have to be one of the biggest Jokes in the Western World.
I never thought I'd hear something so often that is so pathetic, that 'budget constraints' have forced us to cut back. Seriously. Ever heared of Joke, Wanting a Ferrari but only got 50,000 to spend... Oh I'm sorry, even though we knew we didn't have enough, looks like we're going to have to cancel. Proceed to do this knowingly for the past 50 years, and you have what is the U.K Government.
On the otherhand, for example, we have a Western Country like Australia. 'Oh we need two new amphibs, ok, here's the money'. Oh we need some new destroyers, 'Ok here's the Money, oh wait, we can possibly get 4, well build the first 3, and whats left over we'll get a 4th'. Oh wait, we need helo's, well lets buy some new one's.
Join the U.K Armed Forces? What a really bad Career Move.
Dave, London,
........ Meanwhile at Northern Rock!!!
Tony Bell, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
Rather than just constantly reducing troop numbers and equipment levels it is time for the MoD to think radical. Scrap the RAF as a separate force and allocate their equipment to the Army and Navy whilst making redundant the hierarchy.
This would improve efficiency and make huge savings.
To NR of Bristol - Long may we remain informed of the hooros of 20th Century wars lest we forget the lessons that these should teach us and those who died for us.
MikeW, Glos, UK
What should we expect from an organisation that is staffed at the top decision making levels by military officers that have little understanding of fiscal responsibility?
If the CEO of an oil business pursued investing £4bn in off-shore drilling platforms, knowing full well that the drill heads wouldn't be available for years after the platforms had been completed, he would be fired. Yet the MoD are still pressing ahead with new carriers that will be operational, even if delayed for 2 years, well before the aircraft that they are designed to carry. Of course, this being the public sector, the decision makers aren't rewarded with unemployment, but with a knighthood and a promotion to further improve their fat state-funded pension.
While the military might have cause to blame the civil service in the MoD, whose Director of Finance recently admited to parliament he didn't have an accountancy qualification, but they share the blame for consistently changing the goal posts.
James Gallagher, London, UK
As usual, the government is prepared to sacrifice the lives of our servicemen and women, without any concern over their lack of equipment. The alleged "duty of care" owed to our troops is not being implemented and the "bean counters" at Whitehall are happy to squander money on Quangos and Junkets for government mandarins, whilst our armed forces are bled to death. It is without a doubt, time for the heads of the armed forces to take a lead and withdraw all our troops from active deployment until such time as the government coughs up and funds the defence budget.
ian woolger, Budleigh Salterton, Devon
The Biggest Security Threat to Britain is the British Government!
RD, WSM, England
So much for our young men, catapulted into Iraq and Afghanistan by a "tally-ho" Labour government and then eventually deserted and ignored, except for the occasional pre-election photo-opp. Soon, they'll not only be equipped with second rate gear, but find some of it denied them on cost grounds. Meanwhile our leaders, past and present, continue their lucrative careers, chauffered around in brand new £100,000 bomb-proof BMWs. How long before the book-signing launch of the blockbuster biography "How I saved Iraq"?
Theo Nelson, South Hams,
This is truly disastrous news; the actions of the Treasury over refusing to pay the operational costs that they should is a disgrace. It is absolutely unconscionable that our armed services should be facing a continually expanding range and accelerating tempo of operations at the same time as the Treasury are hamstringing them at every turn.
Nick P, Preston, UK
It is interesting, when viewed from the western shore of the Atlantic, to watch Labour, whose backbenchers desire nothing more than to distance themselves from military links to the United States, make decisions that will force the UK to become far more dependent upon US military support when the cheese begins to bind in the future.
Dennis Eagan, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
It is high time the UK stopped obsessing over war. The amount of TV time that appears to be about the 1st and 2nd world wars is nothing short of ridiculous.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread may be a good description of UK foreign politics. As a NZ friend remarked, England appears to want get involved far too quickly in far too many conflicts. I have to agree.
NR, Bristol, UK
Compared with the billions being shovelled into education, social security payments and the NHS, the defence budget is tiny. Sadly, politicians think, wrongly, that there are no votes in defence.
PMA, Omagh, N Ireland,
Absolutely disgusting, to what lower depths can this government sink with its unmitigated, callous, irresponsible and quite frankly scandalously dangerous demolition of the military?
Adam Rickard, Hemel Hempstead,
Once again this shows how much the government thinks of our military personnel. The cut backs are going to make it even harder for them to carry out their jobs. Why don't we just scrap the whole of our armed forces... I mean what is the point in having them when in realistic terms they can't do anything.
Having left the RAF a couple of years ago, I am hearing stories from friends who are still in of the ridiculous conditions that they are having to deal with. What the government isn't telling the general public is how many of the troops are leaving.
Cut backs.... they wont need to have cut backs the personnel are leaving on their own accord.
Craig M, Sydney,