There are serious doubts about the affordability of the Ministry of Defence’s equipment plan, according to the Defence Committee report, Gambling on ‘Efficiency’: Defence Acquisition and Procurement.

Committee chairman, Dr Julian Lewis MP, says:

“It is extremely doubtful that the MoD can generate even more efficiencies from within its already stretched budget on the scale required to deliver its equipment plan. This will inevitably lead either to a reduction in the numbers of ships, aircraft and vehicles or to even greater delays in their acquisition.”

The affordability of the equipment plan (to design, build or buy new ships, aircraft and combat vehicles) rests on a presumption of £7.3 billion of ‘efficiency savings’ that have yet to be achieved say the Defence Select Committee.

In particular, the report expresses concerns that:

  • While there is much talk of reform and transformation of defence acquisition and procurement, an explanation is required of the criteria for assessing such progress and a timetable is needed for the achievement of clearly specified goals.
  • The affordability of the equipment plan rests on £7.3 billion of theoretical ‘efficiency savings’, in addition to the realisation of £7.1 billion of previously announced savings, but it is extremely doubtful that the MoD can generate efficiencies on the scale required to deliver the equipment plan or detail how it would proceed to do so;
  • Though the SSRO has helped the MoD to realise some savings for the taxpayer, its limited scope and powers and the lack of clarity regarding its relationship with the MoD, all serve to restrict the SSRO’s ability to be an effective regulator. We recommend that the SSRO be given the ability to inspect all single source contracts, save for exceptional circumstances.

The report also calls for an emphasis on the importance of sustained production in UK defence manufacturing, in order to maintain a successful and high-skilled workforce and to preserve our sovereign defence manufacturing capabilities. The report goes on to recommend that a new defence industrial policy should be underpinned by the following:

  • A broader definition of ‘value for money’ that incorporates the positive impact of major defence projects on local economies, skills and employment levels by adopting new Government procurement guidelines so that ‘local value’ can be taken into account;
  • An emphasis on the importance of a regular drumbeat of activity [i.e. a sustained production line of defence manufacturing in the UK] to sustaining a successful and high-skilled workforce and to maintain the UK’s sovereign defence manufacturing capabilities; and
  • Increased investment in research and development, with a commitment by the Government to spend at least 2% of the MoD’s budget on science and technology.

Read the full report here.

33
Leave a Reply

avatar
13 Comment threads
20 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
19 Comment authors
WillR CummingsDaniele MandelliRecandy reeves Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
andy
Guest
andy

i dont think it helped moving Trident and looking after it into the defence budget,even though Trident is part of our defence,it does take a massive chunk of the budget away the same with war pensions and also these daft abuse compensation claims…take them away from the defence budget it would probably save 50 billion plus which could then be used for manpower and equipment that is needed…
just my opinion mind….

David
Guest
David

Agreed Andy – Osborne’s little gift to the MoD of paying for the nuclear deterrent chews up a full 8% of the defence budget. As you point out the budget also has to pay for pensions etc that weren’t included before AND find efficiency savings (ie cuts) elsewhere to fund new equipment, leaves not a whole lot left in the kitty…… I am from Northern Ireland but live in the US. The contrast between how funding for the US Forces is made available vs the utter penny pinching mentality of HMG is shocking!!! Not that the US doesn’t have it… Read more »

Ross
Guest

all of those changes to the budget were made so cuts could be made whilst keeping to the NATO 2% at a time when everyone else bar the US were dropping below, and we were giving them shit for it.

the budget is a farce as it is right now.

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

slash foreign aid and you’d free up £ millions 13.1 billion per year is just plain pointless

Mike Saul
Guest
Mike Saul

No doubt in my mind the current equipment plan is unaffordable.

Solutions are reform the MOD, have a viable defence strategy and increase defence budget.

Chances of this happening? Zero. No political will exists it’s not as if politicans have their sons and daughters in the firing line, too busy getting their politican mates to give them jobs as political assistants at the taxpayers expense. Examples are Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.

Evan P
Guest
Evan P

Agreed, it is a shame how nobody with any power wants to change the situation (or wants to say that change is needed). I don’t really know what the Tories even want any more. They don’t want to spend on anything at all if they can help it, and Labour want to spend money on everything apart from defence which is quite irritating. People won’t start pressuring the government with any effect until we are knee deep into another cold war, which is inevitable it seems.

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

retire all the admirals an other ranking expensive people we don’t realy need. that would at least cover the grey paint bills!

Will
Guest
Will

I’m no fan of Corbyn and MacDonnell but exactly how can they influence the decisions being made by the current Conservative Government and how is the current mess even slightly their fault?

maurice10
Guest
maurice10

Does anybody in the MOD talk with other services to ensure a linked up procurement plan? How can well publicised programmes suddenly become unaffordable, Brexit aside? On hearing these concerns I did my own quick analysis as to what the UK forces really require, in the immediate future. * Land Forces Quick and responsive divisions that can deploy at a moments notice,a highly probable scenario. Conventional tactics, using MBT’s and other heavy armour, possibly less likely in the short term. * Airforce Continuum of current operations in the Middle East, therefore Typhoon deployment to continue plus future upgrades. Introduction of… Read more »

Evan P
Guest
Evan P

I slightly disagree on the armour front. I think that with the planned upgrades, MBT numbers should be kept the same, but have plenty based in Estonia, or anywhere that is under threat from Russia. As it is, a few hundred troops couldn’t do anything against a Russian army, and our tank divisions would take too long to get to where they are needed. There isn’t much of a need to have many MBTs here, unless for training and maintenance, since our island itself isn’t under threat from a uniformed enemy in which a tank would be of any use… Read more »

maurice10
Guest
maurice10

What I was attempting to say was, faced with a tightening of the belt and warnings of falling short of planned equipment numbers, where could the MOD ease off the pedal in the near term? Heavy armour is essential but are we wise to upgrade CH2 over Type 26 /31 availability? Those CH2’s currently deployed in eastern Europe are more than a match for the Russian equivalent apart from their all-new tank, which is currently working up. I know it’s much used, but Brexit is a major headache for the UK MOD. Currently, we have no real roadmap as to… Read more »

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

I would disagree – but before I do will say it depends on what we want. If speed and a medium capability is required then 8×8’s backed up by a larger fleet of Apache’s is preferable to a tracked heavy armour. I personally think we can go with Boxer and a larger (144 as opposed to 50) apache force instead of tanks. The ability of this force to move further and faster and deliver the required offensive punch seems to be a game changer. Our Tank fleet has been used very lightly in the last 20 years – whilst our… Read more »

Tim
Guest
Tim

Tanks are great if the enemy have no tanks and no air cover. Since Russia have both we should focus on air defences and land force mobility.

Elliott
Guest
Elliott

Helos are only viable for air support if you can guarantee air supremacy and, you are not going against a foe with large numbers of both shoulder and vehicle launched SAMs. Gunships are highly vulnerable when pulling out of their attack runs when flying at low level for extended periods.
The best weapons against tanks has repeatedly been shown to be other better equipped better traind tanks and tankers. MBTs should never be sacrificed for wheeled vehicles unless the mission is peacekeeping not real war.

maurice10
Guest
maurice10

The problem is money today! The idea we increase the Apache is not open for discussion,as that replacement programme is already signed off, but could still see a reduction? As I pointed out in my initial post, where can the MOD ease off the pedal, in order to protect critical projects? I summarised by suggesting heavy armour could be placed on a slower cooker, as opposed to slowing F35 deliveries and cutting projected Type 26 /31 numbers. The notion we can do without MBT’s would be to deny ground troops of the support and protection, regardless of weather conditions. An… Read more »

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

Every piece of equipment has its pros and cons and every piece of equipment has various missiles etc – designed to kill it.

MBT’s cant keep up or travel as far or as fast as the 8×8 strike fleet being proposed, Apaches can.

As I said – its horses for courses and obviously a balanced force is best but costs money.

David Steeper
Guest

The day MBT’s come up against even a handfull of Attack helo’s will be a Prince of Wales, Repulse moment. MBT’s are obsolete just like Battleships were in 1941. I am still waiting for someone, anyone in the MoD the select commitee or Parliament to raise the question of how much money is being spent on the brass of all 3 services. If we were to reduce their % to that of the US armed forces we would save £100’s of millions every single year. But it will never happen as always the armed forces will fight for the last… Read more »

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

merge all the forces and to hell with the traditionalists.

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

order a design fo a vstol version of the typhoon

maurice10
Guest
maurice10

Apologies for the disjointed page layout.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

HMG will always prioritise juicy contracts with industry over providing adequate numbers for the forces.

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

smash the BAE monopoly.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Absolutely

Ian
Guest
Ian

Want a world class, balanced military then it must be paid for.

Politicians are not prepared to pay for it even though they say they want it.

The 2% originally a target to shame Germany et al into upping their game has become both a comfort blanket for politicians to wrap themselves in and a straight jacket from which they unable to escape.

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

maybe a study into the cost of one single u.k defence force along the lines of the u.s marine corps with a land sea and air capability. its worked for some nations notably japan.

Geoffrey Roach
Guest
Geoffrey Roach

It doesn’t make a jot of difference as to where the money for Trident comes from nor is there anything much that can be saved without dramatically altering the UK’s role in the world. As my Meerkat friends would say “we need more money..it is simples”

Paul T
Guest
Paul T

I believe it’s time to accept that the UK can’t do everything. I think we should have slightly smaller but well equipped modern armed forces who’s main priority is the defence and security of the UK closely followed by it’s NATO commitments. Our area of operation should be the North Atlantic, South Atlantic and the Med and not the South China Sea. America and it’s regional allies in the Pacific are more than capable of handling that situation without us.

BB45
Guest
BB45

Agreed I don’t see a need for our ships to cross the Panama Canal or go beyond the horn of Africa unless its humanitarian funded out of the FA budget. Defence should be at the very least 2.5% of GDP especially if the Nuclear deterrent is included in the budget. The whole point of maintaining a large military is so that no one dare mess with you at least that’s how the British and US empires justified it.

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

immediately after the falklands war the defence budget peaked at over5% the nation has the money it is poorly used

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

the u.k should make up its mind quality or quantity, you can’t have both. the u.k should swallow its pride google amarg inventory and see where the R.A.F budget could be better spent and sometimes go for 2nd hand equipment. maybe even get a mates rate from the u.s 300 f-16’s 100 f -15’s?the yanks have hundreds in maintained storage. the giant j.f.k carrier is in mothballs, available as a museum donation. that would have been a faster, better acquisition than either the q.e or p.o.w,it may have even come with a tailored air arm as part of the deal… Read more »

Rec
Guest
Rec
Will
Guest
Will

Doesn’t help that the pound has dropped significantly against the dollar since the referendum.

R Cummings
Guest
R Cummings

The armoured fighting vehicles procurement programme has been raided continuously and annually over 30 years to pay for the vast cost over-runs on aircraft, warships, missiles and sensors. The result is a miniscule fleet of ageing Challenger 2s and Warriors and a 40+ year-old fleet of geriatric FV-432 Bulldogs. Let us sincerely hope that we never have to field this lot in a serious engagement or we are going to be found out as having been entirely negligent regarding equipping our army. Calls to transfer even more money from the army to pay for RN and RAF kit makes mt… Read more »