Showing posts with label SDSR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SDSR. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Royal Navy Ships

HMS Bulwark is the current Flag Ship
Although the UK has a proud naval heritage the Royal Navy has long been under the microscope as far as manning and royal navy ships are concerned.

However, with the 2010 SDSR (Strategic Defence Review) and the 2004 White Paper, Delivering Security in a Changing World, there are signs that Royal Navy ships will be severely reduced to a smaller and more capable fleet (arguably reducing the quantity of royal navy careers too...) with the most modest naval procurement programme since the end of WWII.


Part of this procurement programme is the provision of two 65,000 ton Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, scheduled to enter service in 2014 and 2016 respectively.

In 2002 the surface fleet of the Royal Navy was reorganised into two flotillas, one each at the naval bases of Portsmouth and Plymouth. The vessels listed below make up the flotillas and other naval organisations with the Royal Navy.


Royal Navy Ships

The Royal Navy has a long heritage: It's History

See our Short History of the Royal Navy and Aircraft Carriers of the Royal Navy

Aircraft Carriers
HMS Illustrious

Assault Ships
HMS Ocean
HMS Albion
HMS Bulwark

Frigates
Type 22 Frigates
Type 23 Frigates
Type 26 (FSC) Frigates

Destroyers
Type 42 Destroyers
Type 45 Destroyers

HM Submarines
Vanguard Class SSBN
Trafalgar Class SSN
Astute Class SSN

Naval Air Squadrons
Royal Navy Non-Commissioned Rating Structure

More Sections: 
RAF Squadrons and Regiments

Next section:
The Royal Marines

UK Armed Forces Pay Rates for all Services: April 2011 – April 2012

Friday, December 9, 2011

Is £38bn Defence Deficit Affecting Aircraft Carrier Requirement and Capability?

HMS Ark Royal is verily missed
It will not have gone unnoticed that during the past few days much has been written regarding the National Audit Office (NAO) and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reports
and the mistakes that – if one believes all that is said – have been made by the Government as far as the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) decision to scrap HMS Ark Royal and the building of the two Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers is concerned.

First of all let there be no doubt that the Government ‘got it badly wrong’ and left itself wide open to criticism for not fully appreciating that aircraft carriers are a necessary evil and can project air power where needed. The recent Libyan operation would have been more cost effective had Ark Royal still been in service with her highly capable Harriers than deploying Apache and Sea Kings from HMS Ocean and flying unnecessarily long and expensive sorties on Tornado, Typhoon, Sentinel and VC10 tanker aircraft from Italy, Cyprus and RAF Marham in Norfolk!. The Government are truly guilty of looking for short term financial gains without looking at the long term requirement and not realising that future defence needs will probably not be dictated by Westminster!


The Public Accounts Committee, chaired by the Labour MP, the Right Honourable Margaret Hodge MP, has accused the MoD of ‘focusing on short-term affordability in drawing up options for SDSR to cover a £38 billion black hole in its budget’ and when referring to the changes being made to the new aircraft carrier programme Mrs Hodge said:


“Once again, a major MOD project will be completed much later, cost much more and offer less military capability than originally planned.


“Changes to the aircraft carriers and the aircraft flying from them in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review have changed the risks and costs involved in ways that are not fully understood. Rather than two carriers, available from 2016 and 2018, at a cost of £3.65bn, we will now spend more than £6bn, get one operational carrier and have no aircraft carrier capability until 2020 – almost a decade. The second carrier will be mothballed, while the operational carrier will be available at sea for only 150 to 200 days a year.


“On top of that, the technology to enable the new aircraft to fly from the carrier is untested. The newly constructed ship will have to undergo immediate modification and the costs of this will not be known until December 2012.


“In preparing options, the Department concentrated on short-term affordability and the need to make cash savings, and did not focus strongly on long-term value for money. While the Department believes the decision will save £3.4 billion, only £600 million of this constitutes cash savings, with the other 80 per cent simply deferred costs.


“It is of deep concern that our ability to hold the Department to account was hampered by the Cabinet Office’s decision to withhold from the NAO all the information it requested to make a judgement on value for money. We welcome the subsequent decision by the Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretary to make the papers available, following pressure from this Committee and others."


With regard to the NAO and Public Accounts Committee reports it has been said that media sources had reported ‘on inaccurate claims that the full Carrier Strike capability would not be achieved until 2030’. MoD sources said this was not true and answered that ‘the more capable Carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter fast jet will begin operating from our aircraft carrier from 2020, with six jets available for operation’ going on to state that ‘by 2023 this number will increase to 12 UK jets on-board and we will be able to work with our allies to increase that number because of the interoperability that the Carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter allows’.


In reply to both the NAO and Public Accounts Committee reports the Secretary of State for Defence, Philip Hammond, said:


"We are tackling the inherited black hole in the Defence Budget and, earlier this month the National Audit Office [NAO] rightly recognised the work that this Government is undertaking to bring the Department's finances back into balance.


"When this Government came into power, the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers were already £1.6bn over budget. As part of an overall package of measures taken in the Strategic Defence and Security Review we have reduced overall spending on the Carrier Strike Programme by £4.4bn over the next ten years.


"The NAO and the Public Accounts Committee have both acknowledged that our decision to build a second aircraft carrier makes financial sense. Converting one of the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers to operate the more capable Carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter fast jet from 2020 will maximise our military capability and enhance interoperability with our allies.


"Operating the more cost effective Carrier variant fast jet will, in the long term, offset the conversion costs and provide us with aircraft that have a longer range and carry a greater payload. Until our new Carrier capability comes into service, we can utilise our extensive basing and over flight rights to project decisive air power, as we showed during the Libya campaign”.


When examining the whole aircraft carrier issue it is worth remembering that had there been more control over defence spending in the past there would probably be no £38bn budget deficit and that had that been the case the swingeing cuts made to defence under SDSR may well not have been necessary. This leads us to suppose that the Royal Navy would still be capable of providing the all-important amphibious air wing that the current Government have deprived the country of leading to a lower level of national security and power projection – which is only one part of the whole erosion of defence equation!


Photo © Mike Cattell, Flickr

Monday, August 1, 2011

Armed Forces Allowances Update

The Armed Forces (Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force) do give a number of allowances (despite what you hear about Armed Forces cuts etc).

There are specific lead allowances for service personnel assigned to seagoing units to compensate for the extra time spent away from home; Travel expenses can usually be claimed for duty journeys from a normal place of work for all the services; there is the Local Overseas Allowance (LOA) – Contributes to the additional costs of day-to-day living in an overseas county; Special Messing Allowance (SMA), and Overseas Furniture Provision Scheme (OFPS). These are only a few of them that are actually available.

There are many more allowances available and you'll find them here in our British Armed Forces Allowances section. Here's a few more:

General Allowances for Service Personnel

Travel Expenses In The Armed Forces
Travel and Subsistence when Living Overseas

Child Related Benefits In the Armed Forces

The links above take you to sections where you'll find articles explaining the different types of allowances open to you. However, in the previous 12 months there have been many changes.

This article describes some of those changes that directly affect the Armed Forces and their families.

As part of a comprehensive spending review, a direct consequence of 2010's Strategic Defence and Security Review, the changes all began end of 2010. It was announced that more than £250 million would be stripped from the armed forces' £880m allowances budget ordered by the Treasury.

Needless to say, the first to go, deemed too extraneous were perks for senior officers, such as payment for chefs and cleaners, drivers or gardeners.

Military personnel of all ranks have been asked to make personal financial contributions to allowances such as those which cover travelling from home to work.

Payments to cover travel to sports events and training facilities are also considered to be vulnerable to culling. Military travel allowances last year cost the government £54 million.

Defence chiefs accepted the cuts with regret but also claimed it could 'seriously damage troop morale'.

Some senior defence sources have criticised the move but others have welcomed it - our opinion is that the Armed Forces cannot be compared to MP's claiming expenses. However, cuts have to be made, and naturally expenses and perks are always the fist to be culled. This is replicated right across the private sector too. In fact some within the Armed Forces have claimed many officers are 'living beyond their means' and that the cuts will prevent fraudulent claims.

One issue however that has thrown up opposition is the examination and possible culling of the Continuity of Education Allowance, which helps pay for the private school fees. CEA costs the taxpayer £180m a year and is claimed by 5,500 service families.

As well as allowances, all forms of the armed forces specialist pay – which makes up a significant proportion of the salaries of pilots, comms crew, divers, bomb disposal experts, submariners and members of the special forces – is also to be examined and it looks like there will be inevitable cuts to these looking towards 2012. However, in our view the cuts cannot be too severe for specialist pay, as part of the remuneration for taking on extra duty and skills is the specialist pay rate in the first place. Take too much of that away and how can recruiters attract candidates into the specialist trades?

Qualified aeroplane and helicopter pilots, as well as specialist aircrew, can earn up to an extra £40 a day on top of their salaries even if their job does not involve flying.

Politicians argue that Pilots for example should only be paid the extra specialist pay when they are flying.

Under the current allowances scheme pilots are still paid the full "flying pay" for three years once they have left a "flying job". SDSR considers this too 'generous', the extra pay is worth millions of pounds to pilots who do not fly and submariners who no longer serve at sea. George Osbourne described this as 'staggering'.

Local Overseas Allowance, is paid to troops serving abroad where the cost of living is more expensive than the UK, will also be reduced (but the number of places that are more expensive than the UK are disappearing). In 2009/10 LOA cost the MoD £224m.

---------

When dealing with expenses you must pay up front and then claim back what is owed by providing a valid receipt. Otherwise, if you can't provide the receipt you'll get nothing.

There are still many good allowances available to the Armed Forces but in these unsettling economic times those perks are slowly disappearing. However, some essential perks will stay but don't let all this put you off, the Armed Forces still offers what many jobs in the private sector cannot.

Friday, May 20, 2011

SDSR - shame or relevant?

Whitehall
With the Strategic Defence and Security Review published in the autumn of 2010 speculation about the eventual outcome gathered pace and although denials are regularly issued by both politicians and the MoD it is a fact of life that we live in a society where secrets are hard to keep and as such we must expect the unexpected because politicians are thinking the unthinkable.

It is widely accepted that defence is a costly business and put simply is a bit like the insurance policy you hope you are never going to need. If you want your insurance policy to provide cover against all risks you accept the cost of a higher premium but on the other hand paying a lower premium will doubtless give you cause for concern and, unfortunately, this will be the end result of the SDSR if what we are hearing, seeing and reading becomes a reality.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that politicians are those who make everyday decisions about our lives, in the main without consultation, and that this is also true as far as the defence of the United Kingdom and our overseas commitments are concerned. Nowadays politicians have very little experience of the inherent dangers of soldiering because they have no experience of the profession – which is what it is.