And now another £18 Bn in defence cuts...

[BEagle]

From today's Sunday Times:

May 29, 2005

MoD blamed as forces face £18bn cutback
Michael Smith and Peter Almond



THE armed forces are facing £18 billion of cuts or delays to “essential” ships, aircraft, armoured vehicles and equipment over the next decade because the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has overspent its budget.

This weekend Lord Boyce, the former chief of the defence staff, joined opposition parties in condemning the government as “irresponsible” for failing to fund the programmes.

Many were promoted by the government as high-technology systems that would more than compensate for the scrapping of equipment and units that it announced last year.

New figures have shown that the MoD is forecasting a procurement budget of £66 billion for the next 10 years compared with projected spending of £84 billion.

The Treasury has refused to provide any more money, leaving the forces no choice but to accept stringent cuts or delays to many of their most cherished programmes.

Last July Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, announced that 20,000 personnel would be cut from the forces along with 14 Royal Navy ships, the RAF’s fleet of Jaguar bombers, four infantry battalions and 80 Challenger 2 tanks.

Whitehall sources have now disclosed that a new round of cuts is looming with spending on 15 key projects, which were expected to cost a total of at least £40 billion over the next decade, having to be cut to £22 billion.

The plans for future equipment likely to be affected include the navy’s two new aircraft carriers and the air force’s Joint Strike Fighters (JSF), both of which are considered by military top brass to be essential to the armed forces’ doctrine of expeditionary warfare — sending troops to trouble spots around the world.

The carriers are expected to be reduced in size and their current delivery dates of 2012 will be pushed back, while the number of JSFs could be cut from the planned figure of 150 aircraft to as few as 100.

The army will have to delay plans for a new generation of light tanks and armoured personnel carriers designed to make it more mobile and reduce the time it takes to deploy large numbers of troops.

John Reid, the defence secretary, is said to be furious at the extent of the financial problems left behind by Hoon, who should have signed off this year’s equipment plan in the spring but held it over until after the election.

Hoon, now leader of the Commons, repeatedly claimed the forces were enjoying their longest sustained period of increased defence spending, while at the same time imposing big cuts to capabilities.

Boyce, who had to announce the highly controversial decision to scrap the navy’s 24 Harriers in 2002, said the decision to axe a total of six frigates and destroyers and then renege on the new system was “totally dishonest"

[FJJP]

Oh, God! It's enough to make you weep! I dispair!

Is there no depth to which this Government will not sink? How many more lies and high levels of deception are the British people to suffer at the hands of Bliar and his croneys?

It's the thirties all over again - soon we will be reduced to the capability of a third world armed forces....

[Compressorstall]

Perhaps we should lay off the expeditionary warfare and stay at home and have a sponsored walk instead...

[Navaleye]

Things are never as good or as bad as they seem. Lets see what happens and give Reid a chance.

[Dan Winterland]

People have been saying that since 'Options for change'.

[Michael Edic]

Prune [sic],
How can you spin this one?

[AMiller]

Navaleye,

"Things are never as good or as bad as they seem. Lets see what happens and give Reid a chance" -> this IS the labour government you know.

ANdy

[tucumseh]

I’m afraid this is the usual recycled stuff we see from the press. Yes, it’s mostly true, but either they are poorly informed or the MoD has succeeded in having the copy watered down. Probably both. There is no attempt to get to the bottom of the issues or spell out the consequences. Most readers will think “So what”. It was all predictable, predicted and ignored.


"THE armed forces are facing £18 billion of cuts or delays to “essential” ships, aircraft, armoured vehicles and equipment over the next decade because the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has overspent its budget".

An interesting use of tense. Already overspent? Perhaps alluding to the RAB (Random Asset Budgeting) fiasco, which was predicted by almost every single individual who had to deal with it, and was almost entirely the Treasury’s fault. Alternatively it could be a reference to PFI (Promotion For Instigators), which conveniently avoids up-front costs but commits the Defence Budget to huge, inefficient contacts for decades to come.


"This weekend Lord Boyce, the former chief of the defence staff, joined opposition parties in condemning the government as “irresponsible” for failing to fund the programmes".

Some would say it is irresponsible to run unfunded “programmes”, thus giving the impression to their colleagues and industry that the cash exists. And DPA and DLO are not blameless. Their habitual failure to tell DECs to get lost when the “programmes” clearly fail scrutiny is inexcusable. Too many experienced PMs in DPA are employed on programmes they know are unviable and/or will be cancelled before development or production commences. In fact, whole IPTs are in this situation and are effectively indirect labour; that is, they make no direct contribution to DPA’s primary task – delivering equipment. Yet, they commit scarce resources.


"Many were promoted by the government as high-technology systems that would more than compensate for the scrapping of equipment and units that it announced last year".

Very true. NEC is a typical example of this. Have you actually read JSP777? All it does is describe what NEC is and just about touches on what it hopes to achieve. Any 4th year apprentice can tell you this as knowledge of it, and the process by which it is achieved, is inextricably linked to his pay. (A good incentive). And there’s the rub. Nowhere does the JSP mention how it will be achieved or if it is funded. Not surprising really, given the number of senior MoD staff who BOTH (a) don’t know and (b) think it’s a waste of money. (Do you see the solution?). Oh, and the books describing the process (which is what most DPA/DLO staff actually need to know) are up for cancellation next month. But don’t despair. Last updated in May 1991, anyone deemed suitably qualified to manage (what is now known as) NEC was issued with personal copies, which I sincerely hope he will retain (now that the rest are retired/dead/left DPA).


"Boyce, who had to announce the highly controversial decision to scrap the navy’s 24 Harriers in 2002, said the decision to axe a total of six frigates and destroyers and then renege on the new system was totally dishonest".

I’m afraid he hasn’t a leg to stand on if he, or his colleagues, rolled over and accepted these cuts without agreeing compensatory packages. By that I mean successful risk mitigation through staffing new programmes and completing, at least, a Concept phase. No, that in itself doesn’t guarantee the kit will be bought, but is a lot better than what they’ve left behind, as it leads to understanding. And if the Customer (DEC and above) doesn’t understand, the Treasury will bury them.

[Impiger]

Slow news day then ....

This is the same 18-20 £Bn mismatch in the future programme that was reported on 14 months or so ago and that promted the current round of efficiency (sic) measures. The figures have just been released again in the normal annual reporting cycle so it gives the journalists and ex-CDS' who should know better another go.

There are sometricky decisions ahead and putting them off (as we are prone to doing) only makes it worse in the end.

How about a what would you delete from the future programme and why thread?

[MaroonMan4]

Oh deary me!

Impiger - it may be the same money, but there is still not any decision, just a negative atmosphere that continues day after day (as well as completely futile Staff work that is just regurgitating the same old crud). No one has the spine to make a decision just in case they get blamed/media exposure as the person that significantly restrained the UK Armed Forces.

Thank God I pulled the yellow and black when I did! I have heard a rumour (and it is only a rumour) that Future Lynx is dead in the water (for both Brown jobs and Fisheads) which essentially waves good by to Teeny Weenie airways.

Now someone just remind where Buffoons press release is that said that Wastelands had the Future Lynx contract - or was that just pre-election smoke and mirrors and there is a word in his speech that provides a get out clause?

But at least we all know that the £18 billion will be used on worthwhile causes, you know the politically correct, health and safety, litigation rubbish that is just eroding our society beyond any recognition.

One day this country will require warriors-this Govt is hell bent on destroying all ethos, esprit de corps, morale courage let alone the mission critical equipment required to instill confidence and target effect.

When todays politicians are old, writing their memoires, basking in there past 'glories' they may watch CNN/Sky News and see the British body bags returning on mass through Brize and they may see the mass war graves filled with British corpses and then they may realise what a gross error of judgement they made.

My late Aunt was a history teacher - she said that history repeated itself. Without being too dramatic, the rise in the BNP and other such parties across Europe, the drawdown of the military and the real potential for economic decline all have a familiar ring.

I do hope that I am wrong.

:(

[engineer(retard)]

Tuc

"I’m afraid this is the usual recycled stuff we see from the press."

Not this time, whilst the message may be similar perhaps we will see where the cuts are actually going to be this time. I'm afraid a lot of programmes will be going down and I suspect that the EP round was deliberately delayed until after the election. There were a lot of mutterings in town.

Agree with you on RAB, I have made my views clear in previous discussions with Pr00ne why I think it distorts the budget and how it is difficult to manage. My belief is that we have been taken for a ride and that the savings that were due to be put back into the budget have been taken as cost savings measures and that these cuts have been disguised by the introduction of a different accounting system. As for MOD overspending the budget, what on? what has been deliverd or is going to be delivered in the near term?

Regards

Retard

[Tartan Giant]

Last July Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, announced that 20,000 personnel would be cut from the forces along with 14 Royal Navy ships, the RAF’s fleet of Jaguar bombers, four infantry battalions and 80 Challenger 2 tanks.

Which all falls nicely in place for the master plan, so the once mighty UK has to rely more and more on the EU Rapid Reaction Force, and all that spawns from it. NATO - what NATO?

New Labour in government, and their affair with the EU, produces the rotten children!

God help us as the EU rots sets in!

TG

[JessTheDog]

Very true. NEC is a typical example of this. Have you actually read JSP777? All it does is describe what NEC is and just about touches on what it hopes to achieve. Any 4th year apprentice can tell you this as knowledge of it, and the process by which it is achieved, is inextricably linked to his pay. (A good incentive). And there’s the rub. Nowhere does the JSP mention how it will be achieved or if it is funded. Not surprising really, given the number of senior MoD staff who BOTH (a) don’t know and (b) think it’s a waste of money. (Do you see the solution?). Oh, and the books describing the process (which is what most DPA/DLO staff actually need to know) are up for cancellation next month. But don’t despair. Last updated in May 1991, anyone deemed suitably qualified to manage (what is now known as) NEC was issued with personal copies, which I sincerely hope he will retain (now that the rest are retired/dead/left DPA).


I had the pleasure of working in the pre-NEC data communications field for some time. Anyone that thinks NEC ("not enough cash" for "network-centric warfare") will even partly compensate for cuts to capability and numbers has been sucking on the the gas at the dental centre. NEC was (and probably still is) a loose collection of comms equipment and computer hardware and software systems linked by the vague coincidence of being paid for by Her Majesty. Interoperability is the longest dirty word there is!

Some good news - John Reid apparently hates Buff Hoon for the mess he has handed over. That gives him something in common with the boys and girls in uniform!

[Front Seater]

Hmmh

We have heard the same. Apparently AH will be kept in the hangars with flying rates/spares reduced as it is too expensive to go anywhere (rumoured that treasury block all orbats that include AH).

So from the looks of it the mighty AH will end up under RAF control (no Lynx no AAC) and be used as an Emergency Service for the biggy conflicts where the treasury will suddenly find a pot of gold.

How foolish - but if that's the way they want to play it don't expect my usual enthusiasm, loyalty and working all hours/separation from family etc.

It is now just a job isn't it - no amount of hard work and separation from family will ever balance the continued overwhelming reduction in resources - can it?

[tucumseh]

Jess

“Interoperability is the longest dirty word there is!”.

Dead on. And in 2001 it was officially pulled from the flagship programme which was relying entirely on NEC. Rendering it more like a punctured rubber dinghy. Yes, someone with good intent put it in the URD but then a bean counter asked “So what’s the MoD’s policy on interoperability?”. (None of course). “Well then, you’re not getting the dosh”. Gross inexperience, lack of scrutiny and oversight, abrogation etc etc – just makes it easy for the Treasury.


Eng

My point was that almost everyone in the MoD (and the press) has known of the budgetary problems and their causes since, at the very latest, 2002 when we were all briefed. And most responded, “What’s new, we’ve known since 97” (in the case of RAB). I suspect we agree on this. There’s an age-old dilemma which any Requirement Manager recognises - If there’s a 100% probability of a risk occurring, you’re not allowed to call it a risk. So, if you don’t deal with it up front and it’s not in the risk register, what chance has your successor got?

[The Gorilla]

My view is that the problems go back much further than most people think. My theory is based purely on answers to questions I have asked and my interpretation of events I have personally witnessed.

Back in the early to mid 90's I heard from more than one very senior Air Officer, (at formal briefings and usually at Stations that were closing!) that it didn't matter how many different defence cuts there would be over the next 30 years or so. They suspected that we were in for a very long period of unsettled change. They had a long term plan to survive any circumstances!!

I sincerely believe that the ultimate long-term goal is to try and keep a small mass of criticality together so that in the extremely unlikely event of hostilities to the homeland we will introduce conscription. The critical mass will keep the home fires burning so that the forces can be ramped up to war levels over a number of months thus saving UK PLC a lot of cash in the process. The numbers I heard mentioned for the RAF were not far from where we will be soon and that was unthinkable back in 94.

I suspect that this plan has been followed meticulously, the years of overstretch make it easy to keep our seat on the security council whilst at the same time ensuring a steady outflow that continually exceeds recruitment. One set of cuts follows another and it hasn't been political party specific has it? HMG, MOD and senior military officers have all planned to bring us where we are today. World events post 9/11 have merely assisted the overall plan and perhaps even accelerated the process. A process that is leading to a deliberate run down of our Armed Forces not seen since the 30’s.

There is of course just one small problem that those who would live in 1955 haven't foreseen. A majority of youth today will never submit to conscription in any form for any reason and will ultimately give any one who tries it a bloody nose. There are strong arguments out here in civvy street that we do not have any further requirements whatsoever for a large standing Armed Force. Obviously I don't subscribe to that view but I can assure you that it does exist in huge quantities both in Government and on the shop floor. I suspect that the recent bad press is being deliberately orchestrated to achieve these aims using the well-proven tool of convenient leaks.

As maroon man says history repeats itself and I sincerely hope that we are not in the early 1930's part of the cycle. We can do nothing to resolve the problems except hope that common sense will eventually prevail. But I will not hold my breath!!!


:confused:

[engineer(retard)]

Tuc

I suspect that we are in furious agreement as usual but I think that the difference now is:

"Whitehall sources have now disclosed that a new round of cuts is looming with spending on 15 key projects, which were expected to cost a total of at least £40 billion over the next decade, having to be cut to £22 billion. "

2 programmes that I have been involved in have been in free fall since before Xmas. They are expecting to be cut and are not being worked at all, technically they still exist on the book. If they survive then you look at a years delay to introduce resource to re-start, the indecision is crippling. Would the decisions have been announced if there had not been an election, I'm with the sceptics on that one.

That dirty word does have a policy now in the JSP600 series. Unfortunately, it is poorly written and difficult to implement on mobile networks in small platforms. I also had similar arguments about cuts to fund NEC because it was reliant on the enemy falling over in accordance with the business case. if they did not play the game then you had precious little reserve to sustain the fight. Will NEC work, the JTRS programme that is the US enabler is already in trouble:

http://www.fcw.com/article88751-05-02-05-Print

Can we buy back the assets that ew have shed if the enabler does not work?

Regards
Retard

[moony]

It would appear that Navaleye is in a huge majority of 1!

Moony

[mbga9pgf]

well, were did we honestly expect to get with this government? looks as if Dr Ried has been sent in as the caring MP with a shoulder to cry on. We are more likely to get a realistic defence expenditure out of this government (in line with GDP growth AT LEAST PR00ne) than I expect **** out of a rocking horse.

[BEagle]

No - too many thieving immigrants from Dementia and Godknowzwheristan to support, 12 year old sluts with brats to spoon feed, conceptual research focus groups to sponsor and an inefficient, over administered health service to bail out. Plus lots of huggy fluffy regulations to impose - and so-called schools to throw taxpayers' money at to bolster some lunatic 'performance indicators'.....

L is for Lies
L is for Labour

[mutleyfour]

Maroonman4

Think you need to check your facts re Future Lynx?

The programme is very much on at the moment...Ring Lynx IPT for the latest or read....



Future Lynx (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=54743&session=dae.13997757.1117436689.Qpq7EcOa9dUAAGlie3c&modele=jdc_1)

Long live Teeny Weeny Airways

[MaroonMan4]

Beags,

Bl00dy hell - that is one of the most impassioned posts I have seen you make. However, I am totally one hundred per cent behind you. IF the saved money was going to credible and tangible causes - i.e. NHS, Transport and Education and if the Govt were not sending us all round the world in order to punch politically above our weight - then I would be more than happy to scrap the lot, CVS, AH, Typhoon - the whole lot .

I would be more than happy to assist the police force and become a local national guard etc.

But this is just it

(a) The world is more unstable than ever (and I still can't work out why the British public are so niave think that there are still 'Peace Divedends' - what will it take Chemical attack on the tube, B747 into the Houses of Parlt).

(b) The money is going to all of the wasted causes that Beagle refers to. I am certainly not racist, homophobic and hate any 'ism/extreme views. Are we all that dim that we can't see what is going on in front of noses.

So when will the British public backlash against uncontrolled immigration? What will be the libel/litigation case too far? When will people realise that the wellfare state has gone too far and provides not only for the genuinely needy, but also the lazy?

And Mutley,

Of course the Lynx IPT will say the programme is going ahead - just as the SABR IPT did and just as the SCMR/BLUH programme did. Of course no one has made a decision yet and so those industrious Staff Officers will continue to beaver away on an aircraft that is just about to have the plug pulled.

How about NH 90 in the Find role? Now to the bean counter that makes the most sense. Solves the NAO lift quandry and also provides a Find capability (just bolt on the sight/Laser Designator when and if required)

From a capability perspective it is horse c@ck - we all know that. From a treasurey perspective all of their Christmas' come at once. After all they will not have to be the ones in an OP in an airframe with an RCS the size of the Isle Of Wight.

However, from an RAF point of view - how very interesting SH in the Find role....hmmmh, I wonder who will crew them ;)

[BEagle]

This is the sort of thing I object to the taxpayers' money being wasted on:

"Three schoolgirl sisters have given birth aged 12, 14 and 16.
The Williams sisters, who live with their mother in a council house in Derby, feature in a BBC3 documentary called Desperate Midwives.

Natasha, the oldest, Jade and Jemma, the youngest, are reported to receive £600 a week in benefits.

Their mother Julie Atkins, 38, who said the girls were too young and had ruined their lives, blamed schools for providing poor quality sex education."

Now, even I'm not daft enough to join the BNP, UKIP or other right wing group, but why on earth should these kids receive one penny in 'benefit' from the state?

And did you know that, in 2003, almost 140000 immigrants settled in the UK, a fifth up on the previous year, according to official figures? Sure some will be needed and will be most welcome, but how many are just welfare state scroungers?

[engineer(retard)]

"why on earth should these kids receive one penny in 'benefit' from the state?"

To buy their hoodies and for chavelocution lessons.

[ORAC]

And did you know that, in 2003, almost 140000 immigrants settled in the UK, a fifth up on the previous year, according to official figures? Sure some will be needed and will be most welcome, but how many are just welfare state scroungers?

BBC: UK government figures show that about 130,000 nationals from eight of the new member states - different rules apply for Cyprus and Malta as Commonwealth members - applied to work in the UK between May and December 2004. About 123,000 successfully obtained work permits.

According to Home Office estimates, the new workers - over half of whom have found permanent employment - pumped about £240m into the British economy during that time. Fears that migrant workers would act as a drain on the economy appear unfounded. More than 95% of incomers are working full time while the number drawing state benefits, according to the Home Office, are "very low"......

"The general opinion is that this migration has been beneficial," says Dr Martin Ruhs, from the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society at the University of Oxford..... "It continues to meet a need in terms of filling labour shortages and there have been no adverse effects such as a rise in unemployment levels."

[BEagle]

So, we had ample capacity in terms of housing, health care, education and social services to cope with these extra 130000 immigrants, did we?

So how come Gordon-the-greedy and Fatty Two Jags are trying to come up with yet more schemes to bury our countryside under housing programmes?

As for Dr Ruhs, the words of Mandy Rice-Davies spring to mind once more..... And quite whose 'general opinion' is he stating in any case?

[ORAC]

I think you will find that they are adult (strike education), fit (health) and, as stated above, working (social services). They are also not the ones rushing out to buy houses, the vast majority intending to eventually go home - relieving us of the expense of health care and pensions after they have spent years contributing to our economy.

As the example of the 3 girls discussed previously shows, our problems are home grown, not imported.

[mutleyfour]

the vast majority intending to eventually go home

Absolute piffle ORAC....do you remember the last Iraqi elections? There was a ballot box in London for Iraqi's living in the UK. Why are they still living in the UK? Their country is free from the tyranny of Sadam and co.

Was there an election box in Iraq for servicemen etc during our recent election?

Home grown....only cos the majority of the pink and fluffly brigade were born here. I for one am fed up with funding every tom dick and harry that wants to come here to live, especially when their are pensioners that are struggling to find Council Tax monies.

[BEagle]

Actually, if they did have children in need of education, they probably wouldn't want to come to the UK in the first place if they had any sense, I guess. Orac is absolutely right about the root cause of our domestic problems....

Nothing against the concept of people wanting to move here, just as long as we can cope with their numbers! And yes, quite happy if they were to be 'In My back Yard' - particularly if they happened to be leggy Lithuanian lovelies! :D

There was an interesting piece on the news not so long ago about a delightful young couple from Latvia who reckoned that they'd just about had enough of life under Blair and were off back to their very pleasant land as soon as they possibly could - for them, moving to Britain hadn't been a good idea.

[Mad_Mark]

"Their mother Julie Atkins, 38, who said the girls were too young and had ruined their lives, blamed schools for providing poor quality sex education."

I am sick to death of poor parents that always blame schools for their own failings. Yes, schools do have a social education responsibility, but the bigger responsibility lies with the parents. They should stop trying to be their childrens friends and start being their parents :*

MadMark!!! :mad:

[airborne_artist]

If someone has a bad driving crash/accident that is their fault, they don't pipe up and blame BSM, so why if they get pregnant/hooked on heroin should they blame the education system?

[Biggus]

What is the current UK unemployment figure? Could some of the jobs being done by the 130,000 odd foreign workers coming here not be done by British workers (I am aware of skills shortages in certain areas!!), so scoring the double bonus of not only contributing '£240 million' to the British economy but also reducing the burden on the welfare state? If British workers are not willing to take on some low paid jobs we need to re-examine the way the system works, so it is in their interest to do so (a part wage part benefit system to provide a certain minimal income?)

Just a question from a simple minded individual, who I like to think is not racist, but does have UK plc's best interests at heart first!

[pr00ne]

FJJP,

WHAT comparison is there to the nineteen thirties in our current situation, I cannot think of a single parallel you could draw, not one.

Michael Edic,

Spin what? The MOD has a funding crisis, is that new? There is nothing new here, why do you think all the force structure changes were announced in July way before the replacements or enhancements were delivered or even on the horizon? The MoD has had problems managing expenditure and complex project management since the early sixties, it simply cannot do it and no Government of any persuasion has ever managed to get it to work despite numerous reorganisations, reorganisations and initiaves.

mbga9pgf,

Where did you expect to get with this Gov’t? You got £27.9bn this year, £33.4bn in 2007, a £3.7bn increase in the 2004 spending review coming after the 2003 increase which itself was the largest in 20 years. You got an additional £4.4bn from the reserves to fund the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan ops in FULL, with a commitment to an additional £300m against unforeseen operations costs.
Actually, just to show I am not a complete Labour spinnite , I think your idea of growth in the Defence budget in line with economic growth is a reasonable request, yet how likely is it that ANY party will commit to that so long as there is no direct military threat to this country of any kind and a hell of a lot to do in a country that thanks to the Tories has become unable to even countenance additional direct taxation.

Beagle and the rest,

I won’t even grant your racist ravings the decency of a reply.

Biggus,

People like you just don’t get it do you!

We have near as damm it full employment, without a healthy flow of skilled and unskilled immigrants we will just not have enough people to man what is a thriving and growing economy. There is a certain level below which it is just not possible to go in terms of unemployment, incapacity benefit, long term sick, early retirements etc etc. In 1940, with this country with its back to the wall and mobilised to defend ourselves against what looked like overwhelming and impossible odds, there was still an unemployment figure of over one million in this country.

I work professionally with a lot of asylum seekers and legal immigrants, it is not easy for them and if they cannot offer anything in terms of skills and experience then it is bloody hard for them even to get in. Many of them are here for a short time to take up employment such as driving buses for which companies cannot find applicants and set up recruiting fairs abroad. Many regions of the UK now have the absurd situation of offering more jobs in one paper on a single Thursday than there are unemployed in the region. Many of them are Doctors, Dentists, lawyers, accountants, architects etc etc and their skills are in very short supply. Many are nurses or support staff in various health disciplines, we urgently need these people though I would argue in the case of Africa they are more urgently needed at home.

UK Plc needs these people.

[BEagle]

Racist ravings?

Retract that libellous allegation!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Ahh. Good to see prOOne back with his leftist claptrap. I had almost missed the ramblings and rantings; so much that I was beginning to believe that his disappearance coincided a bit to neatly with the announcement of our new Minister of Defence. Now that would explain a few things!! ;)

I won’t even grant your racist ravings the decency of a reply
Nice to see the usual retort of the bankrupt left/centre political (un)intelligentsia!! Can't argue against it so resport to calling people racist and their (heartfelt?) comments as ravings. Well I believe that the chattering classes are politically and, perhaps more importantly, morally bankrupt and the root cause of the 3 pregnant not quite teenagers?

Now back to the thread. Of course prOOne is right (in one respect) the Defence budget is always in a predicament. The biggest problem here has been caused by decades of under investment, probably going back to the 60s when Old Liarbour axed so many replacement programmes. The Armed Forces have been forced to make do and make good and all the time the dreaded 'bow wave' in the equipment programme has been building. There are only two real ways to solve the problem - we need money to pay for the new equipment and lots of it. Perhaps Health and Education and Social Security (which is paying £600 per week to a bunch of irresponsible silly little girls and their mother (just why should I/we/you pay them a penny? Self inflicted injuries?!?!)) might start finding a few savings to go towards the Defence Budget!

Or we need to scrap a couple of expensive programmes - I would suggest the carriers (sorry RN I actually support the need for them). This is the only way that the savings can realistically be made. If Noo Liarbour is to be forced into acting we need to hit back at the centrepiece of expeditionary warfare and say "Sorry something has to go, we do not have the budget to build them". (I think that there would be many in government that would actually breathe a sigh of relief). And before I provoke a retort of single service protectionism please know the facts on cancelling TypHoon - it would cost us as much to buy 100, or 150 or the 232 on order so ther ARE NO savings there. (For once the contract was written almost too well - between the partner nations anyway).

You got an additional £4.4bn from the reserves to fund the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan ops in FULL, with a commitment to an additional £300m against unforeseen operations costs.

We did not get anywhere near the Full funding! Much of the money that was spent was then counted by HMT as part of the EP. Many of the UOR equipment programmes that were bought to do the Government's bidding were then deemed to have been an aspiration on the EP so HMT refused to fund them. This further adds to the EP bow wave as money had to be taken from future programmes to pay for UOR programmes that the Treasury refused to pay for! If, and I stress IF, Gulf Ops have been funded in full, then that is only right and proper. If they hadn't been then we would have to say good bye to the carriers, T45, FRES, and a few others beside. And we have debated the smoke and mirrors 'increase' in the budget and the cash part of the Defence Budget still remains at about £23 - 24 B so where is the increase?

[BEagle]

Good call, Roland!

But actually, the rot started with that complete ar$e Duncan Sandys with the infamous 1957 White Paper. A Tory, incidentally.

pr00ne makes even 'Comical Ali' Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf look rather amateur when it comes to believing your own political spin!

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

A) You might well hate this.

B) I should not be using my Mod username, sorry Danny.

C) Totally anecdotal.

D) Can't be specific due to family reasons.

E) Doesn't mean much anyway; BUT

Talked to the new Minister recently in a relaxed setting. With me being a total civvy with no obvious service connection. Result being:

Hoon an idiot.

HM Forces needing a far bigger sort out than NHS

That above is more important.

That Airforce safe but integration will happen.

That Army tanks are out but rotors are in.

Reservists and TA may well be extended.

With India, China most of South America and also Emerging East Europe increasing defence spensing the UK will fall behind without spending inceases of +12%.

This won't happen therefore management of decline is paramount.

Ergo, carriers will happen.

Gleaned in 14 minutes and I shouldn't have told you.

Cheers

WWW

[engineer(retard)]

"You got £27.9bn this year, £33.4bn in 2007, a £3.7bn increase in the 2004 spending review coming after the 2003 increase which itself was the largest in 20 years."

Please tell me how you did the pre and post RAB calculation to arrive at this figure?

Speaking from an Industry perspective, where are the new programmes?

Regards

Retard

PS Good to see you back.

[tucumseh]

Engineer is right. Nowadays you simply cannot compare like with like when discussing the Defence Budget. The new accounting method used post-RAB prevents it and to simply state there has been an increase is disingenuous.

Over the years I’ve been unfortunate enough to be interviewed by various Treasury and Audit teams. (Having once discovered a company triple-billing, my name featured high on their “speak to him” list. I was young and stupid, so PE gave me a pat on the back and told me not to do it again if I wanted to progress. I didn’t progress). I think myself a fair-minded person, and looking at it from their point of view, I know for a fact they consider such things as:


Manning

The Services grumble they are undermanned. The argument is forever lost when you consider the sheer number of Servicemen at the likes of Abbey Wood, Wyton/Brampton and Andover (DPA/DLO). The Treasury look at the (Treasury determined) grade description of a junior civilian project manager (C2) and think “As a PM he is required to be a wholly competent Requirement Manager and ILS Manager, so why are most RM and ILSM posts manned by more senior Servicemen (and some by even more expensive consultants)?” Similarly, why are there rafts of Sqn Ldr/Wg Cdr/Gp Capts playing at being Supply Managers? It’s a waste of highly trained talent. I don’t know how many people I’ve covered there – perhaps an infantry battalions worth?


Fiscal Efficiency

Similarly, the Treasury only have to get out the numerous Auditors reports, both MoD and independent, and say “This report recommends there are savings to be made which will not affect the Services capability in any way. Test cases have proven hundreds of millions can be saved each year through simply following mandated instructions. Why do you refuse to do it?” It’s like ripping up money, so no wonder the Treasury resist budget increases.


Sorry, I have every sympathy with those at the front line who have to suffer but, given examples like these, the Treasury will always win. I suspect a forum consisting of mainly aircrew and engineers will (perhaps secretly) agree with me. What is needed is someone with the b***s to sack those who knowingly waste the money. Perhaps Dr Reid will pin the DPA and DLO XBs to the wall and kiss them goodnight in good old Glasgow fashion.

[Widger]

Did anyone read the article in the Torygraph about Terminal 5? BAA seem to have come up with a very interesting concept in taking on all the risk themselves. At the moment the project is on time and I believe on budget. The parting shot of the article was from the project manager stating that his project was a lot more complicated than a couple of Aircraft Carriers.

I am not an economist or an engineer but, does he have a point?

[tucumseh]

I’d say he’s never been a project manager in the MoD.


A few starters for 10:

His budget will match the fair and reasonable cost of the actual requirement. MoD’s seldom does.

His customer will have stated the requirement clearly, thus allowing him to specify the job to bidders, who in turn can cost it accurately.

He knows what aircraft are going to land at the airport and use the terminal. MoD don’t.

He can include spacious maintenance facilities, and if the test equipment and/or spares are too big or voluminous, he can build an extension. MoD can’t.

If his facility is badly damaged, by whatever means, it won’t sink.

He doesn’t have to cater for nukes (am I allowed to say that?)

If **** happens, he has 4 backups immediately at hand.

His terminal doesn’t need to be shut down every few years for an 18 month refit.

He doesn’t have to replenish at sea, he uses the M25 / M4 (perhaps the MoD has it better on that one).

He doesn’t have bosses continually telling him to “Cancel it, integration is too difficult”.

As Project Manager, he will be the boss and senior member of his team. Almost always the opposite in MoD.

He will be rewarded for doing a good job.

[BEagle]

And he won't just work keenly for 18 months, then slacken off before doing bug.ger all in the last few weeks, leaving a pile of poo in the in-tray for his luckless successor. Who will do the same over the following 3 years.........

"Not in my tour" syndrome is what I call it!

[Navaleye]

Pr00ne, Thank you for the history lesson on New Liabour's defence expenditure. It overlooks the fact that the MoD is broke! A percent here or a percent there is meaning less. They cannot afford to pay for existing equipment or manning levels let alone new ones! :yuk:

[ZH875]

UK Plc needs these people. Yeah, about as much as we need lawyers and politicians.

[tucumseh]

"And he won't just work keenly for 18 months, then slacken off before doing bug.ger all in the last few weeks, leaving a pile of poo in the in-tray for his luckless successor. Who will do the same over the following 3 years.........

"Not in my tour" syndrome is what I call it!"




BEagle - you've met the DPA XB! Never mind, you'll soon get over it. The trick is to ignore them.

[mutleyfour]

Like most servicemen and women, I'm a little sceptical about published facts and figures.

I'm not racist, sexist, or any other form of ist but really prOOne, that could have been an excerpt from Question Time.

Its about time that you opened those obviously closed eyes that are ever so present in the middle of your name.


I'm not privvy to where this countries social services monies are spent, but I question how can this country be in a state of full employment and yet be on its knees financially? Surely if were all working then were all contributing and hence we'd have lots of money for the government to furnish us with the best facilities in the world.

So

Why is it that a pensioner has to pay council taxes and single mothers living on the state don't?

Why are former bases that are good enough for service personnel to live in unfit for immigrants awaiting processing?

Why do I pay so much in tax if were all of us working so hard?

One thing for sure prOOne is that having an opinion doesnt make me racist...paying through the roof in taxes and being told drivel like your statement just grips my ........

[cazatou]

The more I read - the more I wonder.

Do you think it is just possible that prOOne has "2 JAGS"?????

[ZH875]

Thats probably why the Jaguar fleet was scrapped early.

No-one is allowed more Jags than Prescott.

[papajuliet]

I recently dealt with a case of a Somali who had Dutch nationality and who claimed asylum here. She was mentally unstable and then got herself pregnant. Are those the kind of people prOOne thinks we need?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

pj - what taboid are you writing for?

[ORAC]

AWST:

RAF Tornado GR4 strike aircraft may be kept in service for more than a decade longer than anticipated. The type is due to be withdrawn in 2018, but the MOD is looking at extending the aircrafts service life by at least five years, with further options out to 2030.

Interest in retaining the GR4 is driven by slippage in other procurement programs and by funding constraints within the long-term equipment program........

[pr00ne]

Mutley4,

This country is NOT on its knees financially, it is the worlds 4th largest economy with one of the highest growth rates on the planet.

As to spending social services money, its all a part of the budget known as "social protection" and does far far more than just pay for social services and incapacity benefit.

The hole in the finances that everyone talks about is only in projected future expenditure versus income, there is a huge and ambitious programme of investment in health, education, transport AND, hold your breath, defence! Many financial commentators do not see Brown having all this money to spend when he wants it, they might be right but Gordon Brown has been consistently right in his forecasts since being appointed Chancellor, it will be interesting to see who turns out to be right.

As for the projected MOD shortfall, that is down to bad project management, fudging of desicions and the fact that the MOD is perhaps the worse spender and manager of public funds in the whole of Government.

Look at the size of the UK Defence budget compared to every other countries except Japan and the USA. How come all of these other countries spend less but seem to be able to get far more bang for their buck?

[ORAC]

Maybe their kit lasts longer because their governments don´t keep making them use it......

[Widger]

Proone,

I am sorry but, I have to agree with the others. You truly have a blinkered view. This country is going down the pan. Our economy is built on debt. The sectors that are booming are in Banking, Finance and the Service sector. Within the next few years, our massive personal debt burden will start to bite. We are already seeing the signs.

Repossesions on the increase.
Largest personal debt level ...ever.
Tax rises.
NI Rises.
Increased cost of motoring.
Bankrupcy on the increase.
Spending in the high street failing
Huge Mortgages for people who cannot really afford them especially when all the other increases are taken into account.
Rises in utility bills.
Increased redundancy in manufacturing.
Rising Social burden.
Increase in drug related crime (all related to cash).

As I have mentioned on other forums, I am in the top 10% of earners in this country and I am feeling the pinch. Yes I live well but, all my neighbours have similar problems

The wives go around other people's houses "Oh look at all the lovely things they have in their house" not realising that it is all on credit.

I haven't even got onto the defence budget yet. The RN has mortgaged it's future on the CVF..(where is main gate?) Who is going to pay for Trident's replacement?

How are we going to pay for JCA, the full Typhoon programme (or the fine), amongst all the other pressing projects.


This country is heading for a serious economic crisis
I do not share your optimism.

[StopStart]

More bang for their buck?? Who? Where? I can't think of any other country whose government demands that its military punches as far above its weight as we do.
Most Europeans government happily pare their military down to the bone and then don't really use them other than for minor nominal involvements in multinational tasks.

Sorry proone but you speak in typical Noo Layber double talk. If you don't work for Labour Central Office or the Labour Party somewhere then I'll eat my hat. I suspect the only reason you believe half the stuff you come out with is that you have no direct contact with the results of these "ambitious programmes" and the like.

This MoD may indeed waste money. I suspect it is no worse than, say, the NHS which haemorrhages cash thru daft, ill thought out IT projects, ridiculous funding criteria and heaving bureaucracy. Much of the MoD waste comes, I suspect, from overambitious, homegrown projects designed solely to support an ailing UK industry.

[pr00ne]

Widger,

WHAT sucesful economy is NOT bult on debt, take a look at the good old US of A if you want to see REAL debt!

The worlds 4th largest economy and one of the fastest growing and broadly based is NOT going down the pan.

Sure there is plenty wrong with it, this present Government has been a huge dissapointment afte all the expectations of 1997 but I hate it when people knock it and run it down all the whlie with negativety and a constant "the glass is half empty" stance.

As to the likes of repossesions and bankruptcy, we are a capatilist market based economy built on competition, that means for every winner there has to be more than one loser, the only alternative to that is a command economy on Soviet lines and look what happened to that!

Congragulations on being in the top 10%, I am a succesful Barrister and therefore rely on my performances and sucessess, if I feel the pinch I cannot put it down to the economy or the Government.

Debt is a fact of financial life, Governments and businesses rely on it to survive, credit is a fiscal management tool and done properly is a very useful one.

StopStart,

Look at the size of a large proportion of the worlds forces, compare them to the UK and then look at how much they spend on Defence.

By bang for the buck I was certainly not referring to effect or capability, here the UK does indeed punch far above its weight, but look at places like Israel, France, Germany etc as a comparison in size.

Better start eating yout hat then mate as I do not and have NEVER worked for Central Office or the Labour Party. I am very much in the private world of commerce as a partner in a sucessful business, albeit a rather legal one! Before that I flew the F-4 for Aunty betty.

[engineer(retard)]

Pr00ne

Glad to see you ducked the RAB and "where are the new defence contracts with the increased spending" questions.

"The worlds 4th largest economy and one of the fastest growing"

Growth has largely been fuelled by government spending. Whilst this is not a bad thing it is not sustainable growth as it relies on tax funds. When you stop squeezing the taxpayer, growth stops.

Also as 4th largest economy, we should expect a commensurate standard of living. 4th best health service, 4th largest defence forces etc etc. We do not enjoy these things because GDP and standard of living is relative to the size of the population. Here we are about 15th, which feels about right for comparative health services, defence etc.

What are the factors that make a law business succesful, increased litigation, increased complexity in employment law?

For those of us running businesses other than law we are being strangled by red tape introduced by this government. I have to pay solictors to review my contracts, not for commercial conditions but for compliance with a raft of EU and government legislation. I pay insurance because of the likelihood of IR investigation into IR35 and S660A, this insurance is for legal advice. I cannot get compensation for loss of earnings for an investigation if nothing is found.

Perhaps I should have set up as an ambulance chaser.

Regards

Retard

[An Teallach]

Come on Pr00ne, it's time to come out of the closet.

Admit it, you are an 'Astroturfer' from NuLabour HQ.

For those unfamiliar with the term, Astroturfers are employed by Nulabour to post to popular or influential bulletin boards to build artificial (apparent) grass-roots opinion.

[pr00ne]

engineer(retard),

Not ducking anything, RAB is too dry and lengthy a topic for here, suffice to say that Capital DEL is increasing year on year, is it enough? No I don’t think it is but a lot of people obviously do.

“New defence contracts?” Who said anything about new contracts? MOD is struggling to pay for what it already wants in its approved Expenditure plans, the fact that some of the largest of these are very late and very over budget is obviously causing a problem, you can’t take hits such as an additional £800m on Astute and £700m on MRA4, all for reduced and delayed buys, without someone feeling the pinch somewhere, not too mention fiscal disasters like Typhoon, Bowman etc etc etc. That is where the root of the funding problem is.

Dreadfully sorry you have to pay solicitors to review your contracts, I am sure I don’t have to spell out to you the consequences of you not doing so and being hit with something nasty afterwards. I have seen that happen and it is not pretty and can spell ruin for some.

The factors which make a law business succesful are meeting client needs and providing an efficient service, same as any business.

Try chasing ambulances if you wish, it won’t get you far………………………………..

An Teallach,

It’s spelt N-E-W dear boy, new. Afraid there is no call for the service you describe with the military, not enough of you.

[MaroonMan4]

PrOOne

I respect your views and standpoint - gutsy move to put the other side of the argument. However, I am not saying I agree with them.

So if it is as you you argue, and money needs to be saved, why dont we cut the projects, pull out of the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Lets cut money that way rather than future capabilities. Lets be honest, if we can equip our troops with basic clothing and equipment in a war zone (the body armour for the tankie is a classic (and very sad case) then what are we doing?)

Lets do what we can very well, rather than trying to bluff - which ultimately ends up in unnecessary loss of life.

So have your cuts, plough it into education, health and transport. Be the welfare state for the world - seriously if that is what this country wants then we are in a democracy. But don't try and then punch on a political stage way above this countries weight.

Crown immunity has gone, who is managing this risk and do they really know what is going on or do they believe that they will be posted/retired by time all this sh1t hits the fan.

Just a thought....

[engineer(retard)]

Pr00ne

Perhaps not but both accountants and lawyers appear to be the only growth industries. The added layers of these are preventing my business from being efficient and are a big overhead.

I still cannot reconcile the claimed additional funds and the reduction in capability, despite your pointing out the disasters. As for delays, in Investment Appraisals the bean couunters have always counted them as savings. Political interference in Typhoon was largely responsible for the delays and I was not aware that BOWMAN was a fiscal disaster.

As for new contracts, promises of new carriers, tankers and helicopters have loomed large for a long time but have not been forthcoming.

Regards

Retard

[pr00ne]

MaroonMan4,

If you cut all those commitments you lay yourself wide open to really HUGE cuts in defence, the argument then will run along the lines of; “if you are not deploying on operations what on earth do you need all this equipment for when there is no perceived military threat to the UK?”
Now I don’t hold with that view but it is out there, and not just in the Labour party.
The body armour fiasco was a tragedy but you cannot lay that at the door of defence funding, I think the blame for that one lies a little further down the chain of command and logistics.

I am NOT advocating cuts in the Defence budget, I actually think as the 4th largest economy on the planet we could afford to invest slightly more, but that’s not my call and others obviously disagree.

[Hilife]

PrOOne,

Your right to defend left of centre politics on a military aircrew forum page is not in question even if it is a little futile.

However I was a little taken aback at your attack on poor Mr. Teallach’s spelling. You being a Barrister and all you won’t mind me drawing your attention to your response to Widger yesterday.


Widger,

WHAT sucesful economy is NOT bult on debt, take a look at the good old US of A if you want to see REAL debt!

Sure there is plenty wrong with it, this present Government has been a huge dissapointment afte all the expectations of 1997 but I hate it when people knock it and run it down all the whlie with negativety and a constant "the glass is half empty" stance.

As to the likes of repossesions and bankruptcy, we are a capatilist market based economy built on competition, that means for every winner there has to be more than one loser, the only alternative to that is a command economy on Soviet lines and look what happened to that!

Congragulations on being in the top 10%, I am a succesful Barrister and therefore rely on my performances and sucessess, if I feel the pinch I cannot put it down to the economy or the Government.

Better start eating yout hat then mate as I do not and have NEVER worked for Central Office or the Labour Party. I am very much in the private world of commerce as a partner in a sucessful business, albeit a rather legal one! Before that I flew the F-4 for Aunty betty.

You would think behind every successful Barrister there is a spell checker.

Just a thought….

[Widger]

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

OOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

now now girls!

[pr00ne]

Hilife,

You have me bang to rights! Teach me to try and bang off a reply whilst doing two or three other things and typing the text in the Pprune reply box rather than as a word document that can then be spell checked.

Behind every successful Barrister there are at least three very successful Legal Secretaries………………………………………….


Edited thanks not only to the post pointing out my error but by the THIRD legal secretary whio is also ex RAF and read this..........

[teeteringhead]

There are at least two very successful ........;)

[Cambridge Crash]

As an avowed Socialist, with an academic interest in international HR law, it would be a rare occasion that I would side with PrOOne. But, I have to agree with almost all he says...the UK has a very strong - and largely unregulated - economy, certainly in comparison with our European partners. Just try to open a bank account in Italy or France...

The MOD, as a corporate entity, has been profligate with its vote. The management of procurement projects has been abysmal (we just need to go back 20 years and think of the AEW Nimrod fiasco...).

As an illustration, within the RAF, our estate has been managed by a group of well meaning, yet totally unqualified group of Admin Officers, who have never worked on a building site, let alone worked in a drawing office!

In spite of what many posters think, Service personnel have a narrow range of commercial skills - including project management - compared with those 'outside'. MOD projects are complex - and all the more reason that the MOD uses professional qualified and experienced personnel, with a proven track record. How often are people interviewed for their next posting? Apart from an outer-office job, I was never interviewed in my 20 years!!! Is the PMA system the best way to get bums on seats??? What other large - and sucessful - organisations would use such a system destined for stochastic failure?

CC - back to 'Harris & Higgins'

[engineer(retard)]

"As an avowed Socialist, with an academic interest in international HR law, it would be a rare occasion that I would side with PrOOne. But, I have to agree with almost all he says...the UK has a very strong - and largely unregulated - economy, certainly in comparison with our European partners. Just try to open a bank account in Italy or France..."

And following the EU socialist agenda, we will have a first hand opportunity to find out how poor their systems are.

"In spite of what many posters think, Service personnel have a narrow range of commercial skills - including project management - compared with those 'outside'."

Complete arse. In my own experience, service personnel are valuable and employable because they have range of skills, and not a narrow specialism that they have followed for an entire career. Their flexibility, transferabale skills and dedication to obtaining results also seperates them from the herd. Again in my experience, the biggest problem with service personnel are that they undervalue their worth in the marketplace and often find that their second job establishes their correct level. Take a walk around the IPTs and you will find that the majority of "professinal qualified and experienced personnel" being brought in to do these jobs are ex-service. Take a look at the job sites and find how many jobs can only be filled by ex-servicemen.

"As an illustration, within the RAF, our estate has been managed by a group of well meaning, yet totally unqualified group of Admin Officers, who have never worked on a building site, let alone worked in a drawing office!"

And DHE have improved matters?

E(R) - back to Janet and John

[Climebear]

CC

"As an illustration, within the RAF, our estate has been managed by a group of well meaning, yet totally unqualified group of Admin Officers, who have never worked on a building site, let alone worked in a drawing office!"

This will be why a significant number of them have been headhunted by commercial companies to run their infrastructure projects and then paid very high salaries. They don't need to have worked on business sites - they do need to be able to listen to the specialist that do (either civilian or RE). The job is about management of resources.

I agree with engineer(retard), a lot of military personnel do very well outside and posesing a large number of very attractive attributes that cannot be proved by the award of a qualification.

Having done the job, my main problem was with my boss's priorities placed the provision of hanging over the maintenance of power supplies to a CRC. His qualification for making such an assessment was the ability to navigate from the back seat of an F4.

[airborne_artist]

In spite of what many posters think, Service personnel have a narrow range of commercial skills - including project management

Never heard such tosh in all my life!

I recruit people for a living - many years ago, at the start of the massive build-out of the UK mobile networks, I got a call from Ericsson.

"You were in the services, A_A, so go and find us some no-nonsense, get things done people to help us with this 0.5 Bn roll-out" So I did.

Spoke to one of them the other day, ten years on - he's now working for another company in that space, on £120,000 + car, bonus and six weeks leave etc.

He left the RN to join Ericsson as a Chief Petty Officer, aged 38 ...

I could name you plenty more where he came from, all of whom are thriving. Most were SNCOs!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Have to agree with A_A and The Eng this time. If military personnel are so poor then why do so many seem to do so well in industry? Nothing to do with the training, can do mentality, flexibility and professionalism I suppose!?! Even prOOne seems to be doing well in his new profession. Sorry CC but you are talking out of your backside on this one.

I have known many from the comms world (all ranks) who have left to well paid jobs in the telecomms industry, engineers (again all ranks) who have left to work for a large range of engineering companies and many adminers who have got very good jobs in the civil sector in all sorts posts. (Not to mention the aircrew who have gone to the airlines and who then become training pilots or line managers within their chosen company).

Even those in the commercial and procurement sections now have to do PET to expand on their skills, and many of those in procurement are interviewed for their jobs. And many of those in procurement (mil & CS) are headhunted by industry not just for their inside knowledge but also their skills in procurement and project management sectors!

We could probably all name someone who has left and is doing badly but I think that they are probably the minority not the majority.

[pr00ne]

Roland Pulfrew,

EVEN pr00ne?


Been out a LONG time now, have employed and worked alongside a fair few ex- forces folk, found they fell into 3 broad categories; those that adapted very well, those who simply couldn't adapt, and those who you would never known had been in.

Very difficult to generalise though.

[Squirrel 41]

Evening All,

Sorry not to have responded to this earlier, and as already discussed, not a lot of point in rehashing the debate on RAB. (Accountancy was, and is, boring, IMHO).

However... a point that is worth making is that defence equipment inflation probably runs at a higher rate than the inflation rate for the whole economy - and there are (at least) two good reasons for this:

(a) inflation in the whole economy is lowered by increasing globalisation and offshoring of manufacturing - look at the cost of DVD players over the last five years vs capability. This results from international competition, and defence procurement types would naturally have reservations about sourcing BOWMAN from certain countries abroad (eg China) - meaning that the lowest cost producers won't always win;

(b) we're not replacing like-for-like; Typhoon is not a Jag or F3 "replacement" in the same way as CVF is not replacing CVS - it will replace them but do far more as well - therefore it is unsurprising that it is much much more expensive than a new Jag (or 2) or some new F3s.

There are also some bad reasons for this: project management and political infighting / cr@p decisionmaking are obvious candidates; but so too is the waste within the MOD empire (DLO? Admin? shooter-to-supporter ratio?)

And if we can't - or indeed shouldn't want to do too much about (a) and perhaps (b) (other than ordering less capable platforms) we can make good the bad decisions over which we have direct control.

And yes, I recently found my copy of AP3003 (in a box in the corner unloved with all the rest oddly enough) and got my "ROYAL AIR FORCE" badges for my CS95, and was forced to ask how this added to the effective delivery of airpower.

Just my 0.02....

S41

[tucumseh]

Squirrel said,

“... a point that is worth making is that defence equipment inflation probably runs at a higher rate than the inflation rate for the whole economy”

Correct. Not too long ago project managers could look forward to getting budget increases in line with DTI Indices. For example, those for avionics or rotary wing aircraft were, for years, at least twice the headline inflation rate. Then some bean counter reckoned that if all contracts were firm price, there was no need for any rises at all. A very naïve view which relies on too many factors outwith the PM’s control (or that of his organisation even), the most obvious one being a reliance on DEC stating the full requirement and having it accurately costed before DPA take over. They do neither. The former is mandated but the processes imposed on the MoD make the latter impossible.



“This results from international competition, and defence procurement types would naturally have reservations about sourcing BOWMAN from certain countries abroad (eg China) - meaning that the lowest cost producers won't always win”

I know what you mean, and there are certainly restrictions imposed on procurers, but it doesn’t stop these countries buying from us – and they do. BOWMAN is always an interesting example. What on earth are the many users who have already got radios two generations beyond those bought for BOWMAN going to do with them? The bean counters will probably sell off the better kit to some despot.



”There are also some bad reasons for this: project management and political infighting / cr@p decisionmaking are obvious candidates; but so too is the waste within the MOD empire (DLO? Admin? shooter-to-supporter ratio?)”

This is also true, to varying degrees. The shooter to supporter ratio (or direct to indirect labour) is exacerbated in DPA and DLO by the tendency (nay, policy) to staff projects according to their cost, not content. DPA have whole IPTs managing single projects which could be done in the spare time of a junior PM. Conversely, there’s many putting in 80 hour weeks just to contain the slippage to months rather than years. That’s not poor project management. It’s poor management.