There may (will) be trouble ahead...

Admin Location : East Midlands Spotter Watch Member : Yes

VAT inclusive at Current Prices (� million)
Over �50 million (7 Projects)
Allenby/Connaught	Main Building Redevelopment (MBR)
Attack Helicopter Training Service - Apache	Skynet 5
Colchester Garrison	Tri-Service White Fleet
Defence Fixed Telecommunications Service (DFTS)
�25 - �50 million (7 Projects)
"C" Vehicles	MOD-Wide Water and Wastewater (Project Aquatrine) - Package C
Defence Housing Executive - Information Systems (DOMIS)	Roll-On/Roll-Off (RORO) Strategic Sealift
Joint Services Command and Staff College	Training Administration and Financial Management Information Systems (TAFMIS)
MOD-Wide Water and Wastewater (Project Aquatrine) - Package A
�10 - �25 million (10 Projects)
Army Foundation College (AFC)	Future Provision of Marine Services (FPMS)2
ASTUTE Class Training Service (ACTS)	Heavy Equipment Transporters (HET)
Defence Sixth Form College (DSFC)	Medium Support Helicopter Aircrew Training Facility (MSHATF)
Devonport Support Services - ARMADA	Northwood Headquarters
Field Electrical Power Supplies (FEPS)	Tornado GR4 Synthetic Training Service (TSTS)
�5 - 10 million (8 Projects)
Bristol, Bath and Portsmouth Family Quarters	Material Handling Equipment (MHE) - (Follow on)
Defence Animal Centre (DAC)	MOD-Wide Water and Wastewater (Project Aquatrine) - Package B
Fire Fighting Training Units (FFTU)	Tri-Service Materials Handling Service
Marine Support to Range and Aircrew Services	VLF Naval Communications Service3
Up to �5 million (15 Projects)
Central Scotland Family Quarters (HQ)	RAF Lossiemouth Family Quarters
Commercial Satellite Communication Service (INMARSAT)4	RAF Lyneham Sewerage
Hawk Synthetic Training Service	RAF Mail
Hazardous Stores Information System (HSIS)	RAF Sentry E3D Aircrew Training
Lynx Aircrew Training	Tidworth Water & Sewerage (Thames Water)
Portsmouth Housing 2	Wattisham & Woodbridge Married Quarters
RAF Cosford/RAF Shawbury Family Quarters	Yeovilton Family Quarters
RAF Fylingdales (Power)
Source: MOD Private Finance Unit & DASA (Economic Statistics)
1. Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) project started 2007/08 but no payments made in year.
2. New PFI project added this year.
3. Previously 'Royal Navy Fleet Communications'.
4. Commercial Satellite Communication Service (INMARSAT) contract has been novated to Paradigm, with whom management responsibility now rests.

Admin Location : East Midlands Spotter Watch Member : Yes

Interesting that there is not estimated overall cost of Typhoon, but there is for the A400M

As at 31 March 2007	MPR2007
Post Main Gate Major Equipment Projects (Projects in Demonstration and Manufacture Phase only)	In-Service date Forecast or Actual	Financial Years of Peak Expenditure1	Forecast Cost (£ million)	Change in Cost (£Million) from MPR2006
A400M	2011	2009 & 2010	2 629	13
Astute Class Submarine	2008	2001 & 2005	3 798	142
Beyond Visual Range Air-To-Air Missile (BVRAAM)	2013	2009 & 2012	1 168	-36
Bowman	2004	2004 & 2005	2 009	-10	2
Brimstone	2005	1999 & 2005	899	-1
C Vehicle Capability3	2006	2019 & 2020	703	-
Falcon4	2010	2008 & 2011	292	-
Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System	2007	2006 & 2010	91	-172
Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA)5	..	2005 & 2007	1 858	-58
Merlin Mk 1 Capability Sustainment Programme4	2014	2009 & 2010	832	-
Next Generation Anti-Armour Weapon (NLAW)	2008	2007 & 2008	318	4
Nimrod Maritime Reconnaissance and Attack Mk4	2010	2002 & 2004	3 500	-16
Precision Guided Bomb (PGB)	2007	2006 & 2007	277	-67	2
Soothsayer4	2008	2007 & 2010	195	-
Sting Ray Lightweight Torpedo Life Extension and Capability Upgrade	2006	2007 & 2008	577	-12	2
Support Vehicle	2008	2009 & 2010	1 263	-75
Terrier	2009	2008 & 2009	299	3
Type 45 Destroyer	2010	2003 & 2004	6 464	354
Typhoon6	2003	2006 & 2008	*	*
Watchkeeper4	2010	2009 & 2010	901	-
Source: Defence Equipment & Support
As at 31 March 2007	MPR 2007
Pre Main Gate Major Equipment Projects (Projects in Assessment Phase only)	Forecast Cost (£ million)
Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF)	299
Future Integrated Soldier Technology (FIST)	36
Future Rapid Effects System	618
Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA)	37
Indirect Fire Precision Attack (IFPA)	67
Maritime, Airborne, Surveillance, and Control (MASC)	7
Military Afloat Reach & Sustainability (MARS)5	*
Search and rescue - Helicopter (SAR-H)	12
UKCEC Frigate and Destroyer Programme	55
UK Military Flying Training System (UKMFTS) - Holistic	30
Source: Defence Equipment & Support
1. Financial Year commencing 1 April - not necessarily concurrent years.
2. Forecast figures in MPR 2006 were revised after the publication of UKDS 07. When comparing published UKDS 07 forecast and latest MPR 2007 forecasts the differences will not align (See Pages 30, 106 and 118 of the Major Projects Report for further details).
3. PFI Service with annual service payment.
4. Cost comparison not possible as project did not appear in previous MPR.
5. The tailored Demonstration Main Gate noted but did not approve In Service Date (ISD).
6. Cost data excluded on grounds of commercial sensitivity.

Admin Location : East Midlands Spotter Watch Member : Yes

Defence expenditure of other Nato countries

2000 Prices and Exchange Rates
Country	Currency Unit (Million)	2003		2004			2005			2006		Estimated 2007
NATO Total1,2	US Dollars	555 247		. .			. .			. .		. .

NATO - Europe1,2,3	US Dollars	162 527		. .			. .			. .		. .
Belgium	Euro	3 245	r	3 177	r		3 062	r		3 039		3 172
Bulgaria4	Levas	*		821	r		850	r		835		899
Czech Republic	Czech Koruny	48 197	r	45 245	r		46 672	r		47 147		45 872
Denmark	Danish Kroner	19 457		19 387			18 421			20 180		18 635
Estonia4	Kroonis	*		2 004	r		2 096	r		2 265		2 787
France5,6	Euro	38 248		39 505	r		38 699	r	ll	38 650		38 673
Germany	Euro	29 949	r	29 264	r		29 075	r		28 776		28 612
Greece	Euro	3 863	r	4 209	r		4 604	r		4 787		5 043
Hungary	Forint	254 096	r	240 663	r		241 330	r		216 823		192 678
Italy	Euro	23 205		22 309			20 501	r		18 351		17 705
Latvia4	Lats	*		81			90	r		123		145
Lithuania4	Litai	*		908			842	r		903		977
Luxembourg	Euro	164		173			175			175		221
Netherlands	Euro	6 614		6 581			6 599			6 884		6 771
Norway	Norwegian Kroner	29 488		29 957			27 645			27 496		27 368
Poland	Zlotys	14 527	r	15 287	r		15 782	r		16 535		18 717
Portugal	Euro	1 885	r	2 010	r		2 156	r		2 085		1 997
Romania4	Lei - New Lei7	*		20 661 095	r	ll	2 123	r		2 111		2 293
Slovak Republic4	Slovak Koruny	*		18 806	r		20 447	r		21 093		23 166
Slovenia4,8	Tolars - Euro	*		74 335	r		76 369	r		87 979	ll	381
Spain	Euro	8 461	r	8 660	r		8 552	r		9 016		9 708
Turkey	1000 Turkish Liras- New Turkish Liras7	5 035 733		4 486 689		ll	4 332			4 573		4 734
United Kingdom	Pounds Sterling	24 325	r	24 053	r		26 970	r		27 725		26 415

North America1,2	US Dollars	392 720		. .			. .			. .		. .
Canada	Canadian Dollars	13 393	r	13 717	r		14 204	r		14 800		16 691
United States	US Dollars	383 708		416 195	r		435 883	r		439 304		441 919
Source: NATO

Admin Location : East Midlands Spotter Watch Member : Yes

2005 Counties in Ranking order of expenditure

At constant 2005 Prices and Exchange Rates
Market Exchange Rates					Purchasing Power Parity Rates1
		Spending	Spending Per Capita	World Share			Spending
Rank	Country	US$ Billions	US$	%	Rank	Country	US$ Billions
1	USA	546.8	1 799	45	1	USA	546.8
2	UK	59.7	995	5	2	China	[140.3]
3	China	[58.3]	[44]	[5]	3	Russia	[78.8]
4	France	53.6	880	4	4	India	72.7
5	Japan	43.6	339	4	5	UK	54.7
Sub-total Top 5		762.0		63	Sub-total Top 5		893.3
6	Germany	36.9	447	3	6	Saudi Arabia2	52.8
7	Russia	[35.4]	[249]	[3]	7	France	47.9
8	Saudi Arabia2	33.8	1 310	3	8	Japan	37.0
9	Italy	33.1	568	3	9	Germany	33.0
10	India	24.2	21	2	10	Italy	29.6
Sub-total Top 10		925.4		76	Sub-total Top 10		1 093.6
11	South Korea	22.6	470	2	11	South Korea	29.4
12	Brazil	15.3	80	1	12	Brazil	26.7
13	Canada	15.2	461	1	13	Iran3	22.1
14	Australia	15.1	733	1	14	Turkey	16.5
15	Spain	14.6	336	1	15	Taiwan	15.8
Sub-total Top 15		1 008.2		83	Sub-total Top 15		1 204.1

World Total		1 214	183	*100*	World Total		*. .*
Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
1. The figures in PPP dollar terms are converted at PPP rates (for 2005), based on prices comparisons of the components of GDP.
2. The figures for Saudi Arabia include expenditure for public order and safety and might be slight overestimates.
3. The figure for Iran is for national defence and does not include spending on the Revolutionary Guards Corps, which constitutes a considerable part of Iran's total military expenditure.
[ ] Indicates SIPRI estimate

Admin Location : East Midlands Spotter Watch Member : Yes

At least you know where the rest of your income tax goes.

Location : Area 51 Spotter Watch Member : No

I think it's nieve to think that if Trident was scrapped the money would, instead, remain in the Defence budget. The aim here is to save money to bring down the national debt and the money will go toward that, not more helos etc. The nuclear deterrent carries with it huge political and strategic importance and keeps us on the Security Council which many would say is vital to our long term economic interests.

And another point to ponder - how much deeper would defence cuts be if we weren't in Afghanistan?!.

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

Indeed, it's impossible to separate defence spending from politics as they are ultimately part of the same thing. Retaining a nuclear capability of some sort is inevitable - it's just a question of what sort. Likewise, as said above, it would be silly to imagine that any savings made on Trident would miraculously be shifted to spending on helicopters or anything else. As for Afghanistan, again it's down to politics. Clearly, if our government decided that it wasn't in our political interest to be there, then we'd be out of that God-forsaken place in days. Ultimately, it comes down to the Government deciding what the Government thinks we should be involved in, what we can afford to be involved in, and just how much (or how little) can be justifiably spent on achieving each aim. It's a sad business because in the final analysis, absolutely none of this has anything to do with the defence of the United Kingdom. You have to feel rather sorry for any aspiring serviceman who joins the forces with some notion of fighting for Queen and Country. It's never about that these days - it's about the provision of military force to back-up foreign policy and nothing more.

Location : Gainsborough Spotter Watch Member : no

Just one thought on Trident, why not use Trident on Afghanistan and the troublesome parts of the Middle East, then not replace it as the replacement would be only aimed in that general direction anyway?
Bingo! no Trident replacement necessary, all the money saved on the Afghan deployment saved, the carriers won't be needed as that would be their main deployment area anyway and with the savings, the government can wipe out the national debt and buy quality military equipment. There may (will) be trouble ahead... - Page 2 294955

There may (will) be trouble ahead... - Page 2 294955

Admin Location : Abu Dhabi

A400 is a joke project only being outdone by Boeing's Dreamliner! It needs to be scrapped and the war proven C-17 fleet should be increased, along with a sprinking of 'J' Herks.

I can see the RN getting one carrier, but zero F-35's, and the payoff will be to lose Yeovilton or Culdrose.

Its also been said that BAE have already looked into Navalising the Typhoon, and it is do'able, its not short of oomph and can get off the deck with a heavy payload, and it would appear to be a solution to the 'what do we do with the the over ordered Typhoons' question.

Ive thought for a longtime that the days of 3 individual Armed services are numbered, and we will go down the route of having one HM Force, its been under way for years - Joint Helicopter Force, Joint Force Harrier.....the end is nigh!

So it makes sense that the RAF and Army will be disbanded, as the Senior Service have the ability to fight at Sea (ships and Subs), Ashore (Royal Marines) and in the sky (FAA) !! There may (will) be trouble ahead... - Page 2 253775

There may (will) be trouble ahead... - Page 2 253775

Job done.

Location : Planet Earth

Navalised Typhoon will NEVER happen. To redesign the airframe would cost too much and compromise its performance to such an extent that we may as well keep Harrier (my sources for this info are impeccable)

A Carrier without JSF or another Harrier replacement isnt worth having.

JSF will happen in the STOVL variant (most likely) the current talk about going with the Catapult version is just another review. Even if we dont get the carriers STOVL is the way to go with JSF. Bear in mind that the reason the Harriers were sent t the Stan originally was precisely because of their STOVL performance as the runway at Kandahar wasnt fit for use by any other jet.

Harrier has to be replaced in the medium to short term because the airframes are getting all used up.

I totally agree about the A400 apart from one thing, it brings British Jobs so I will be very surprised if it gets canned.

Finally, a question. Which would you rather have. The Armed forces with the kit they need or an NHS that is free at the point of use? This all assumes that the country's current level of debt is cause for alarm. I am not convinced that it is.

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

The Typhoon in navalised form seems to have come and gone now as a practical idea. BAE did repeatedly say that it could be done - and affordably, and it did seem like a logical way to make use of the additional Typhoons that the RAF were suddenly told they didn't need (as if). But it would seem that there's no political appetite to pursue anything other than F-35 now and I suspect that the reason behind this is because there's every intention of pulling the plug on F35 and they don't want to be left with any "easy" alternative. Cynical I know, but the more you read and hear, you have to conclude that the carriers are just not going to happen and the politicians are already hovering over them (and everything connected with them) like vultures. As for having just one carrier, well that's a non starter too. With a pair already on the cards, and the old business of needing one to be in repair while the other is operations, it seems to be a "Two or nothing" game. Trouble is, it's the "nothing" which we're gonna get! The catapult-reliant version of the F-35 makes sense in some respects (not least that the carriers have a built-in catapult ability if needed, and that we would doubtless buy Hawkeyes somewhere down the line) but I fear it's just another red herring - a sort of step on an inevitable path to complete withdrawal from the programme. But you never know - a great deal depends on just how much of a fight the Navy can put up and history shows that they are damned good at fighting for their favourite cause - themselves.

As for A400 well I think everyone agrees that it's a pointless saga. An awful lot of money spent on developing an aircraft we don't need or even want. Plus it simply makes the RAF's expenses shrink still further with separate logistics to support yet another transport type for no logical reason. I don't think anyone will shed a tear if it's abandoned. When off-the-shelf C-17's and C-130's are readily available and more cheaply, why would anyone want to pursue the Airbus?

Personally, I don't think there is a question of making judgements between a free NHS or having our armed forces properly equipped. Both aspirations can be achieved if the Government would accept that we simply cannot afford to embark on crusades any longer. We all know that they are keen to keep on fighting this bizarre "War on Terror" in order to maintain clout on the world stage (particularly with the US) but sooner or later they'll have to accept that it's unaffordable. Once they do, then they can (and will) drop all the lame arguments about defending us from terrorists (absolute nonsense of course) and rebuilding Afghanistan (let someone richer do it thanks very much), and so on. When that happy day arrives, the armed forces can revert to their primary task which should actually be their only task - defending the United Kingdom. That capability is affordable. It's just that our ghastly, two-faced, lying, self-motivated, self-important, money-grabbing politicians simply don't want to settle for that - they want the glory of being part of a world power, no matter how many people's blood they get on their hands.

Location : huntingdon.cambs

hi all,why dont we buy or borrow the two aircraft carriers that the yanks are going to withdraw and buy surplus f18s which would cost a fraction of what the f35 would.also scrap trident and give the raf nuclear bombs again.job done.

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

I guess the main reason would be because buying or leasing two carriers would also be unaffordable, plus the two British carriers are already under construction now, then there's the massive logistical cost of operating two huge US carriers. Likewise, buying F/A-18's would require funding for those aircraft plus the cost of cancelling all our involvement in the F-35 programme, so there probably wouldn't be any saving. Then of course you have to look further down the line when the F/A-18's would be either worn-out or obsolete (it's getting there already!), and the F-35 would probably be good for another twenty years, so yet another aircraft would have to be purchased to replace the Hornets. The sums just don't add up. If we are to have a carrier fleet then continuing with the two we now have under construction is undoubtedly the most sensible approach, and continuing with F-35 is certainly reasonable, although some (including me) think that the Typhoon option would still make far more sense. But in a wider context it's not about what sort of carrier force we have - it's about whether to have one at all. The political agenda seems to have moved-on from any discussion of what sort of carrier force we have, and onto this more fundamental question of whether the whole lot should be ditched.

As for our nuclear capability, it's not about scrapping Trident as such - it's about upgrading or replacing it. I have a feeling the outcome will be to simply try and soldier-on with what we have for as long as possible, thereby avoiding the issue. The idea of giving the IND back to the RAF is an interesting one though. It has certainly been mentioned in the past that Nimrod MRA4 could easily be configured to carry ALCM's but of course an airborne force hasn't got the submarine's ability to stay undetected. It would mean going back to the days of QRA and dispersals (and all the bomb storage and processing facilities would have to be rebuilt), so it would probably be little cheaper than sticking with submarines if it was to be effective. Plus, the Navy would probably fight to the last breath to hang-on to the IND. But I do certainly think that the notion of Nimrods carrying ALCM's somewhere in the long, distant future might not be as crazy an idea as some people seem to think. These days, even the wildest ideas can sometimes have some merit!

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

Just as a post script, last night's edition of Panorama was rolling-out the same scare stories, but nothing concrete. However it served to confirm that anything is possible when the Review finally gets underway.

Comically, I spotted this comment on a UKAR thread earlier:-

I reckon the carriers will be safe but Trident would be at risk

Roughly translated, this means "I want to see some F-35's at air shows and I can't see Tridents so I don't want them"... Guess it's a good thing that plane spotters don't decide upon our strategic nuclear deterrent policy?! Laughing

Seriously though, Trident ain't going anywhere. No government is going to give-up our nuclear capability. The latest noises from dear Gordon about cutting the submarine fleet by one are probably just hot air as he knows the chances of getting any concessions from anyone else are just about zero, and in any case, losing one submarine makes no practical difference to our abilities - the same number of warheads will be retained. The only real question is whether a replacement programme is postponed or abandoned. But somewhere down the line there may come a day when ALCM's look like a more affordable option, even at the risk of less invunerability

Subject: Re: There may (will) be trouble ahead... 2009-09-29, 08:21

Sheff wrote:: Comically, I spotted this comment on a UKAR thread earlier:-

I reckon the carriers will be safe but Trident would be at risk

Roughly translated, this means "I want to see some F-35's at air shows and I can't see Tridents so I don't want them"... Guess it's a good thing that plane spotters don't decide upon our strategic nuclear deterrent policy?!

Now come on sheff, thats a bit unfair, I`m up for a couple of carriers but I don`t want to see an F-35 at an airshow either.... There may (will) be trouble ahead... - Page 2 Icon_smile

Mind you, saying that, I don`t think I want to be at an airshow if a Trident puts on a display either... There may (will) be trouble ahead... - Page 2 Lol

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

Well, it all rather depends what sort of Trident you've got in mind... I can think of one type that I'd definitely be keen to see!