is this worthy leadership? [Archive]

dallas

26th Oct 2008, 12:06

In my experience, particularly in the last few years, I've noticed a steady decline in altruism and moral courage, in favour of a culture of pension-chasing, particularly but not exclusively from the officer corps - obviously the higher rank you achieve, the better the end pension. Regrettably, I think this has also nurtured toxic by-products of, particularly, short-termism, but also encouraged middle managers to say 'yes' too often, when 'no' would sometimes be the better option.

Moreover, when we have the ability to do so - ie. when not getting shot at - we still haven't learnt that (even heated) debate can be a useful management tool, instead we choose to label detractors as troublesome, at the same time reinforcing the status quo that rank=best idea. Sir Jock and his buddies are simply leading by example, in a RAF that the press may one day describe as 'institutionally self-serving'.

The overall damage is immeasurable, yet tangible on a daily basis - next time the boss walks in, issues a diktat that flies in the face of efficiency/common sense/reality etc. and nobody fields a question when given the opportunity, you just experienced pension blindness.

timex

26th Oct 2008, 12:24

Al R, looks like (is) a Royal Marine stable belt. Not sure why but it may be something to do with the guys he's visiting.

adrian mole

26th Oct 2008, 12:37

AI R - Took a lot of searching of stable belts... found it!

The Royal Marines

have a look at STABLE BELTS OF THE BRITISH ARMY (http://www.stablebelts.co.uk)

nigegilb

26th Oct 2008, 12:58

Jacko Nicko I am not sure what CDS does should be described as leadership, these people appear to be highly paid managers, it matters not who is in post, there are plenty of others, breathless and willing to take the top job. The lack of accountability and political protection given by their political masters xccushions them from accountability. from the accounts I have been given of meetings with bereaved families and MoD/RAF leadership, it is very much the politicians in control. It would appear if the Def Sec/PM says JUMP, up they go in unison.

How else can you describe the undermanned under funded and under equipped foray into Southern Afghanistan in 2006?

Pension chasing is a phrase new to me, but I rather like it.

Nice one Dallas.

Al R

26th Oct 2008, 13:12

Cheers guys - if I was a bootie though, I'd be a bit insulted, not flattered. It seems a shallow and ingratiating gesture. Perhaps he was a Bootie at one point, perhaps he has done the Tarzan course, who knows? Its probably harmless enough though.

The RAF Regt started having penguins, engineer and pilots a while back as Commandant General, and of course, the first thing they always did (understandably) was sow on a set of Reggie mudguards. However much that badge might have boosted their self esteem as a career landmark, it was always meaningless to us who had struggled hard for years for the right to gas people with applomb and style.

Saintsman

26th Oct 2008, 13:15

Civvy street is no different, in fact it's probably worse.

CEOs have obscene salaries, huge pensions, share options etc and when they F**k up, walk away into another highly paid job taking a big lump some with them.

Contacttower

26th Oct 2008, 13:17

Just out of interest what do people think is an appropriate salary for CDS?

knowitall

26th Oct 2008, 13:22

"fees also get refunded by up to 90%."

CEA is availible to all regardless of rank, though 19 year old Private soldiers tend not to have school aged children

the indy had a virtually identical article a week or 2 ago, I suspect your ALL being set up for a cut in tearms and conditions, all in the name of equality of course

Chugalug2

26th Oct 2008, 13:33

Chappie, if Sir Jock and his ilk ensured that the Armed Forces for which he is responsible were properly equipped and manned for the tasks given them he would be worth every penny. They aren't and he isn't.

Dallas, a thoughtful and powerful post, and one that I endorse entirely. As has been said regarding the appalling shortfall in UK Military Airworthiness, it is an evil that happened because good men and women did nothing. Sir Jock and the Service Chiefs are responsible in a legal sense for the state of our Services, but in a moral sense it is that army of good men and women who could have stood and been counted but chose not to. A sin of omission I would contend.

Al R

26th Oct 2008, 13:37

Chugalug2 said: Al, a thoughtful and powerful post, and one that I endorse entirely.

Cheers mate. :cool:

Horror box

26th Oct 2008, 13:42

I have to agree with Saintsman here. I have been a civvy for a couple of years, and I already earn considerably more than I would ever have earnt in the military. Needless to say the senior military is still paid far less than their civvy counterparts, for doing a considerably harder, more accountable and political job. I can only guess what the CEO of BA or Lufthansa earn for example, and I know the CEOs in my company earn a lot more than Sir Jock!

Chugalug2

26th Oct 2008, 13:46

Al R:

Cheers mate. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/cool.gif

Cheers yourself, mate. You know that I consider every post of yours thoughtful and powerful, so it doesn't need saying!

Al R

26th Oct 2008, 14:34

I thought so. :E

Biggus

26th Oct 2008, 15:01

chappie,

I would have thought you of all people should know better than to believe everything you read in the papers.....

Boarding School Allowance (or BSA) as it is now called is an allowance available for everyone in the RAF (and I believe Army and RN as well). It is a fixed amount, or 90% of the fees, whichever is less. Believe me, in most cases it covers about 60-70% of the fees, and covers less each year as school fees go up by more than inflation. Because it doesn't cover all the fees, and the parents have to find the rest themselves, it tends to be claimed mainly by officers (from the most junior to senior) and SNCOs. This is possibly unfair (Al R thinks so - means testing I believe is his idea), but it is not designed as a senior officer 'perk'. The 87m quoted is for BSA across all ranks, not merely senior officers. I expect there are many more junior officers and SNCOs claiming it than senior officers.

As for chauffeurs, they are 'MT drivers', how many ministers drive themselves to the front door of No. 10, and you will find MT drivers wherever the RAF is, included Iraq and Afghanistan, not just at senior HQs.

Take a grain of truth, and then spin it to make the point you wish to,.......

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

26th Oct 2008, 16:05

I can't get overly animated over the top fellah's pay rate. What does grip my s*t, though, is the headline (my bold);

Top army officers get at least £18m in benefits packages

The top fellah is not bloody Army and they are still the second senior Service. Bloody journo's and their totally slack thinking!

No offence intended to the brown jobs, they are doing brilliantly at what they do. You take my point, though?

A2QFI

26th Oct 2008, 16:53

For the state our Forces and Defences are in I do not think it can be truthfully stated that the top people are EARNING their salaries - thay are being PAID them. A basic salary and a performance related bonus would concentrate minds wonderfully!

knowitall

26th Oct 2008, 19:04

Meanwhile

British Army Rumour Service > > Forums > > The Serious Bit > > Staff College and Staff Officers > > RAF don't want command appointments? (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=102369.html)

if you want leadership (or even somthing that vaguely resembles it) you've got to pay the going rate for it (or somthing the vaguely resembles it)

Chugalug2

26th Oct 2008, 22:18

Well, what a lot of uncalled for and hurtful comments on arrse! They really are rather beastly aren't they?
Meanwhile, could RAF leadership be more worthy if it was opened out to more prospective candidates? Why not an Engineer, Admin or Supply CAS? Naturally one would draw the line at a Rock one, eh Al? Seriously, we have now not only a pilot CAS, but evidently a pilot's pilot whatever that is. I for one will be glad to see him move on, just a pity that he isn't taking the CDS with him.

Al R

27th Oct 2008, 07:45

Chuggers,

If one of us was CAS, at least the post would be sexed up a bit (was Peter Harding a Rockape by the way?) and compulsary beer calls, beastings in the gym and proper leadership (sans pinepoles by powerpoint) would be on the agenda. There would be quite a lot of shouting too I'm afraid.

As it is, a pilot has to be at the top - the idea of dishing the top job out to lesser mortals is a daft one however much we like to think 'we' are all part of a big team. A knowledge of aeroplanes and capabilities is one thing, but to actually know what one can do when it is needed has to be vital. Otherwise, if we extended the daft logic of contrived equality just to make us feel better, we would have Jeremy Clarkson lining up on the grid in Brazil next weekend.

I know my limitations, yessiree bob. I am happy to admit that even Hercules and VC10 pilots are probably more switched on than I'll ever be.

Rigger1

27th Oct 2008, 10:27

As it is, a pilot has to be at the top

Absolute Bollox.

Is Richard Branson a pilot, train driver, holiday rep, tv producer? No, and we might do a damn sight better with someone like him running the show.

BlindWingy

27th Oct 2008, 10:41

What?!? Does that mean the RAF could be run like Virgin? I would happily let Branson be CAS if mil pilots got paid airline rates and had loads of fit, adoring hosties! If only...

Al R

27th Oct 2008, 11:11

Rigger said: Is Richard Branson a pilot, train driver, holiday rep, tv producer?

No, he is none of those things, all of which have a use.

Now let me put a question back to you. Have you read Tom Bower's biography of him? I have to be careful here, but let me put it this way. Would you trust someone (hypothetically) with your life and with the Defence of the Realm who you woudn't always trust with the canteen tea swindle or with your wife? That last statement has nothing to do with Richard Branson, who, honoured by Tony Blair as a Knight of the Realm is of course, completely beyond reproach.

Can I meet you halfway then? Maybe if we excluded pilots who have demonstrated the need for a mapreader? :cool:

Chugalug2

27th Oct 2008, 11:21

Now that you have spelled it out Al, a Rock CAS appears an ever more attractive proposition, though when I say attractive I don't mean....and for that matter proposition does not imply...well as long as that is clearly understood! As to:
a pilot has to be at the top
that's my point, for the one thing you'd think he might be concerned with, ie the state of his flying machines, has gone to pot. Perhaps an engineer might have had more of a handle on the situation? I do agree with you though that a Hercules pilot would have ensured the creme de la creme, but again that goes without saying doesn't it? The real point surely is that you need the best man for the job, the present system does not provide for that, clearly. Like everything else at 'top, it needs fixing!

Rigger1

27th Oct 2008, 11:44

The real point surely is that you need the best man for the job, the present system does not provide for that, clearly. Like everything else at 'top, it needs fixing!

Took the words right out of my mouth – well off my keyboard. Why on earth does it have to be a pilot? Surely the best manager should get the job regardless of trade.

Al R

27th Oct 2008, 12:50

Rigger said:Surely the best manager should get the job regardless of trade.

Yes, the military doesn't have enough managers.

Chuggers said: The real point surely is that you need the best man for the job

In these giddy days of gender non specific correctness, you need to get with the programme daddy-o. Frankly though, I'm not averse to the idea of having a woman pilot on top.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/FltLtGoodman.jpg

I find the idea of someone commanding/leading or managing/supervising (choose according to taste) a military arm that deals with how aeroplanes fight and kill.. unable to fly, bizarre. Its like a magazine editor not being able to cobble a few finely crafted words together, yet capable of budgeting but its like a surgeon running a hospital, great with a dagger but crap (when its really needed) with a forecasting spreadsheet. I sat with a Sengo in the middish 90s who spent 25 (25) minutes telling me how Microsoft Outlook would make for better officers. I then had a demo about how it would chime to let him know when he had a meeting. I asked him why he didn't get a clock.

I wonder if those who want non pilots to run the show are those who had to settle for being Engineers, Admin wallahs or Suppliers. Don't get me wrong - great things to do and utterly essential components, but you either decide to aim for the top or you don't. If you can't, then I too, accept that I will never score the winner at Wembley in the 90th minute and I have to live with the constant dissapointment. If you don't, then get over it. I sometimes wish I had done something different (I bet you all do too, don't you? :{) but I wanted above anything to be an infanteer yet I was too thick and the Royal Marines were full up.

That doesn't mean that pilots can't be good managers mind, or that those qualities shouldn't be at the top end of the skillset. What next? Engineers commanding flying sqns? Because if you're suggesting that they can do the top job, they have to get command experience at lower levels. Of course, we could always retain pilots and keep them motivated them by letting them run Scaf. Perhaps we need the best Supply chain officers more than we need the best pilots? And I don't mean that to be insulting, just factual. Civvy Street is full of people dabbling in jobs they think they can do, that they think they have the right to do.. but which they are unsuitable for. God knows rather than dilute the service ethos even further and making it yet more like a civvy company, 'we' just need to go back to getting the basics right. Baby/bath water (sorry :8)?

Al R

27th Oct 2008, 12:59

Biggus said: This is possibly unfair (Al R thinks so - means testing I believe is his idea),

That was one of the suggestions I made, yes. When I heard there was going to be a reshuffle at the Ministry my heart leapt - alas, Quentin bloody Davies got the job, reward no doubt, for running to Gordon when he was getting his new job. In the other place, Lord Astor of Hever though, is proving to be a bit of a battering ram as well as a nice chap and further developments are expected.

The original thread discussing the shocking, blatant and discriminatory unfairness of the current education allowance system got closed as I recall, so best say no more and all that. :ok:

Chugalug2

27th Oct 2008, 13:03

Al R:

I'm not averse to the idea of having a woman pilot on top.

You just had to say that, didn't you? I should of course make it clear that in all my posts the words man, men, manned, chairman etc etc, include the female gender. Has that got me out of the mire, or deeper into it? No experience of female pilots in the mob, but those in civvie street were second to none. Whether or not that would mean they would have made for a CAS or not is a different matter. Point taken about the knowledge/ experience required to lead the RAF. Obviously that needs to be taken into account. My point is that there may well be people who are not pilots, or no longer pilots, who could best meet the verdict of best man/woman for the job. Excluding half the pack from even consideration seems contrary IMHO.

dallas

27th Oct 2008, 13:07

I partially agree with you Al, although I think we would all rue the day when an adminner took the helm, mainly because I think we would see more of a BBC Casualty-esque standoff between the beancounters and the operators, only the former would then have executive power. Notwithstanding TG17's elevation to a higher pay band, I often find they show little interest in our core product, and on many occasions interfere with it or even view it as an irritation - and it's not just adminners - I would be wary of any branch who wouldn't know one end of a C130 from another, once they'd established what one was, of course :) I do think engineers need an engineer, adminners an adminner, Regt a gunner, supply a supplier at the highest level, but agree the top man needs to have a handle on flying operations, which means an aircrew mate. We must also remember that as well as credibility within the Service, CAS needs credibility elsewhere, including foreign militaries, all of whom have people wearing wings at the top, AFAIK.

By the way, what on earth is that bird doing wearing flying gear in central London?

Rossian

27th Oct 2008, 13:30

Archimedes

27th Oct 2008, 13:33

I think that photo is one taken at the time that her DFC award was announced; if so, it was discussed at the time (with a certain degree of 'why isn't she in blues? Harumph!') only for it to transpire, IIRC, that she'd been er... invited to wear that particular outfit by someone of Air rank who had worked out the PR elements of the meet the press day, and decided that flying gear was appropriate.

dallas

27th Oct 2008, 15:52

Dallas you really walked into that didn't you - Have you got a DFC? She was probably wearing it because she'd been told to do so for the press bash which she shared with Cpl David Hayden Military Cross who was equally proud to wear his cs95. Engage brain before opening mouth (or posting crap).
The Ancient Mariner
Nope, no DFC here, and not sure of the relevance of it with regards to my tongue-in-cheek pop at the recent AFB directive on wearing blues. If you're upset by my irreverent use of 'bird', it was used simply as the reciprocal to 'bloke' - it's a northern thing. Engage sensitivity countermeasures before reading pprune?

Brakes...beer

27th Oct 2008, 23:26

To put CDS's £230 000 salary into perspective:

BA CEO: £735 000 + up to 150% bonus
4-star officer on promotion : £150 000
BA long-haul Capt, top pay point: £150 000

moosemaster

29th Oct 2008, 07:20

Agree top job should go to an aircrew mate, but why always a pilot? And why always a FJ pilot?

Surely with the current operational slant a RW or truckie would be better suited.

To that end, a Nav or AEO can be an A/C Commander on the kipper fleet, so they must have somne leadership qualities and an understanding of A/C capabilities so why not an AEO who has also been an NCO, rather than a career occifer.

Pulls pin and runs for cover.

drustsonoferp

30th Oct 2008, 00:12

The top brass of the service should represent all branches, otherwise no balance of importance can ever hope to be met.

The RAF has a long history of aircrew at the top, which in itself doesn't matter, though an imbalance does. For years procurement has centered on the fast, pointy, sexy end of the spectrum. We have a major shortage of SH and AT full stop, though an imbalance in favour of the aircrew favourites. I doubt the 2 can be completely unrelated. There should never be an overt imbalance to any trade group, which would most likely result in a skew of priorities, and the implication that any one trade is by definition better suited to top level leadership is at best flawed

The knowledge required for leadership and management at the very top level will by necessity be somewhat removed from the leader's own experience and rely on modern updates from those actively involved in the present - a thorough knowledge of tactics and capabilities of a Lightning in high altitude combat means very little to lead a current day force at a strategic, not tactical level.

Al R

30th Oct 2008, 07:51

The top brass of the service should represent all branches, otherwise no balance of importance can ever hope to be met.

Shouldn't the top brass be the most knowledgable, most experienced and most insightful? When Engineers etc can demonstrate that they have experience of closing with and killing the enemy and acquiting themselves well, then I will be prepared to accept that they have the greatest perspective and an equal right to commit others to the fray.

I don't mean that to be derogatory of Engineers because I have huge respect for what they can do (when they want to). Watching truculent 'guins in full flight spitting invective about the injustices of the world as they skillfully changed a Harrier engine in the field at 0230 hrs convinced me that they are as big a part about what makes the RAF great as any pilot.

But to be a leader and not a manager, surely you have to demonstrate that you can do and that you have done what you order others to do? This may be unfair and over simplistic, but what is more important, OUR need for personal fullfilment or the needs of the ability to add something because you studied for an OU MA once? I would never tell my troops (all 7 of them at my illustrious level!) to do something in action or prior to going into action that I wasn't able or willing to do myself. Don't get me wrong - I would love to have been able to on many an occasion, but I would have had my arse kicked by some FS! And thats how it should be.

drustsonoferp

30th Oct 2008, 20:19

The top brass should certainly be the most "knowledgable, most experienced and most insightful". This should come irrespective of trade.

To follow your argument in favour of aircrew exclusive top brass through, aircrew cannot then have the perspective or right to commit personnel other than aircrew to the fray - not having been out for the engine cx at 0230 how could they hope to commit the ginger beers to that, under poor lighting and with the potential for rocket attack etc. Alternatively, someone of exceptional talent who rose through the ranks in times of peace, or even just avoided warzone action by doing something important elsewhere would not, by your logic, be qualified to ever send the force into a warzone.

I don't think this is borne out at all. Much as the Prime Minister, President, Chancellor or any national leader you care to mention will never hope to know all and the intricate detail of all over which they hold influence, but take advice from those who do, pitting the mutually exclusive needs of one against another. A presumption that a leader/manager knows all is what gets you into trouble.

Being a fantastic adminner, engineer, supplier, pilot, nav, air trafficker or whatever has very little in common with being an exceptional leader of an entire Air Force. All cogs in the machine being important, not necessarily equally so, but all important, all must be considered at the highest level.

The highest level is there to provide strategic vision and leadership, not get stuck in the weeds.

I stand by my statement that a cross section of expertise and experience is needed.

Al R

30th Oct 2008, 21:18

Assuming that you accept what the ultimate function of an Air Force is, and given that you affirm the ultimate qualities required, how can an Engineer/Admin wallah/Gnr ever be as 'knowledgable, most experienced and most insightful' about that Air Forces's function as someone who actually carries that ultimate function out?

AdanaKebab

30th Oct 2008, 21:58

I know several officers of ground trades who know more about aeroplanes than some stick monkeys, but that is not the point here.
Everyone should have a fair crack at getting the top job, if they don't then the Air Force is not meeting its own equality standards.
To my mind running any large organisation is much like running any other. Personally I think there are much more talented people in civvy street who could run the military in a more efficient and effective manner. If it is so important that the current bigwigs know how to fly, then send them back to what they do best, and let the government outsource for a CDS.
....controversial

nigegilb

30th Oct 2008, 22:21

Having sat and listened to days of evidence in the Coroner's Court concerning the Hercules Inquest it seems clear to me that the single seat monkeys at the top of the RAF haven't a clue about the failures in their system to either recognise the risks taken by air transport crews or afford protection where it is recognised. This failure of the system over which they preside extends to procurement of latest generation tactical air transport aircraft; witness the failure to fund DAS for the A400M fleet. Their only response, to brief the Defence Minister that the Coroner was wrong to describe the failings as "systemic."

It would appear that a willingness to work expediently within cultural expectations in the fast jet centric air force is far more important. I am singularly unimpressed by either the leadership or management skills on offer from the current crop of "Top Brass".

Time for a change?

BlindWingy

30th Oct 2008, 22:46

Is it any wonder that the majority of the top brass are fast jet pilots? Wouldn't the mental capacity and fortitude (good things for a leader) which enabled them to survive fast jet training early in their career indicate a natural advantage over aircrew who wanted FJ but lacked the ability. Generally speaking, of course.

Al R

31st Oct 2008, 01:12

I made the point earlier, that being just aircrew wasn't enough in itself. Yes, there are some complete twonks who fly aeroplanes and that badge alone isn't a prerequisite for the job but all that means is that you have to be more discerning about how you choose that person. And of course, there are some complete twonks who get promoted from other branches too, so that rules out many of the variables. Which leads us back to the principle.. you are either able to lead by example or you don't.

I don't give much time either, to any of that 'equality standards' malarkey, sorry. Who said warfighting was fair? And no one has yet told me how a stacker, admin wallah, gnr or spanner monkey is going to build up suitable command experience at junior/mid level? Or will running PMS count as an equiv tick in the box to running a FJ flt? Or will anyone be given command of a flying sqn (in the interests of 'equality' that is), or if suitability and experience isn't an issue, are we also suggesting that anyone can do anyone's job? Perhaps in the interests of 'equality' we should allow a Provo officer to run Engineering Wing?

And finally, sorry.. if the general response to mundane things like fitness tests here is anything to go by when it comes to discussing leadership, best we hand the whole shooting match over to the army asap. Bottom line is, this isn't a democracy - you knew the craic when you joined up and you either had the bollocks to go for the best job because you wanted it that badly.. or you didn't. If you didn't, why should you suddenly decide later on to sneak in through the back door around men and women who did have the gumption and determination to put themselves through years of hell when you were happy with learning how to count paper clips/sleeping bags/boxes in some attendance course? To the victor etc. And if you were just medically unsuitable then life's a bitch.. get over it, sorry.

Spotting Bad Guys

31st Oct 2008, 07:50

Guessing that by 'junior/mid level' you might mean Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr, then I'd suggest that most engineering and supply officers have had far greater command experience than their FJ brethren of equivalent rank and seniority - who are of course, at that point concentrating on flying! SEngo vs Flt Cdr on a Harrier sqn for example?

I'm neither a pilot or eng/supply...just pointing out the flaw in your argument;)

Al R

31st Oct 2008, 08:50

Its a good point, thanks. In fairness, I mentioned earlier too, that AT and SHF pilots have greater 'management' experience also, than FJ.

But we're talking about leadership as well as management and my point remains. How do the engineers/stackers etc get proper management experience at Wing level? Unless, as I suggested, we will assume that running an Supply & Eng Wing is as suitable as having experience as running a flying sqn? Or do we put engineers in charge of a flying sqn? The single best leader I can remember was a crap manager, in fact, a tankie I once worked with was a superb leader but couldn't manage to wipe his arse with his SSM.

Clockwork Mouse

31st Oct 2008, 10:21

I know it's probably a silly question, but why would he actually want to wipe his arse with his SSM?

Al R

31st Oct 2008, 11:45

lol, fair one. :E

Clockwork Mouse

31st Oct 2008, 12:57

On a more serious note, there has been a great deal of unfounded, unfair and misleading comment and criticism on this thread about the remuneration and commitment of senior officers and, in particular, of the Service Chiefs of Staff. It has been whipped up, as ever, by scandal mongering journalists who know the square root of FA about the Armed Services, their ethos and how they function. Tragically the grieving relatives of some casualties have been cynically misled and dragged into the argument to support the journalistic hype. Chappie, though I have great admiration for you and what you have achieved, you too have been misled.

There has been a lot of fair comment too, helping to redress the balance and injecting common sense and fact for those with an open mind who will recognise and accept it.

The Chiefs of Staff are in an invidious position. During the tenure of the current Labour government the politicians and civil servants have over centralised the MoD and undermined the authority and effectiveness of the top uniformed layers. The individual Service Chiefs no longer have control of their own budgets. They have massive responsibility but very little executive authority and power. The power lies in the hands of politicians and civil servants who have little real responsibility and whose priorities put the welfare of servicemen, women and families well down their list. Targets tend to be budgetary. Success is measured by staying within budget. The advice and warnings of those in uniform is devalued and disregarded and, while still serving, they cannot go public to explain.

The military ethos is to serve, to lead, to take responsibility, to do our duty, and to put our subordinates’ welfare first. I have seen no indication that the Chiefs of Staff are really wanting in this, despite the flak they take. But the civil servants and politicians who actually control the MoD? What are their motives and values? Where do their loyalties lie? Who holds them to account?

I agree that there is currently a lot wrong at the top of the Defence pyramid that needs to be put right, but before engaging mouth and pen, try brain and intellect and select your targets wisely.

nigegilb

31st Oct 2008, 15:20

CM sorry to shatter your illusions but on the subject of Chappie and the Inquest you are so far wide of the mark it is almost funny.

Firstly, a bit of advice, don't ever talk down to Chappie and suggest she has been misled by the wicked press, she will have you for breakfast. I have gotten to know her during the course of the Inquest and believe me she was very active and keen to understand everything that happened. In doing so she wasn't afraid to ask awkward questions, her instinct as to who was being economical with the truth on stand was very sharp.

Secondly, way back in Jan 2006 I assumed that the penny pinching mandarins at the MoD were solely to blame for the Crew not having fuel tank protection. As we learned during the Inquest this was far from the case. The TAT reports were sent to senior RAF officers for staffing. Senior RAF officers at Strike, PJHQ and 2 Gp did absolutely nothing. Not even warning the frontline crews of the danger they were in.

You might want to ask yourself about the culture that allowed that to happen.

No, the basic facts at the heart of the tragedy are that the RAF failed its own men. Say what you like about the Chiefs of Staff, those of us who witnessed some of the senior personnel, unrepentant, robust, unapologetic, unable to recall key facts, quick to deny responsibility, will never forget it.

It was something John Reid alluded to on the final day and I have great respect for him for doing so.

Finally a word about the press, for whom some of you have a pathological hatred for. A handful were in Court for the whole of the Inquest. Again, I got to know them quite well. They held very balanced views about what had happened but were truly shocked by the circumstances of the tragedy. It has been reported that they too wept in Court in the latter stages. Their integrity impressed me a great deal. Oh, and you would be surprised how many of the Broadsheet Defence Journos have served either as regulars or reservists.

Contrast that with the "off the record" MoD briefings given to a key journalist.
I was seething with anger when I heard what was being said.

CM the world is not black and white, I hope you learn that lesson soon.

Clockwork Mouse

31st Oct 2008, 15:39

Your defence of Chappie does you credit. However, before you offer me advice, be sure of your facts. You are wrong in ascribing any illusions about the inquest to me. I have not referred to the inquest or to Chappie's part in it.

And in respect to her statements in the first two posts of this thread, which she started, including her personal comments about the motives of Sir Jock Stirrup, I'm afraid she is well wide of the mark and has been misled into believing what the Independant report said and implied.

I reaffirm my admiration for her. However, in this particular area her instinct has failed her.

nigegilb

31st Oct 2008, 16:09

OK, I see what you mean, I have just re-read her posts.

I ask you one question. As you so admire those who lead the RAF why is it, that in time of war and war that will be on-going for many years to come, have the "leaders" procured a tactical air transporter with DAS kit worked out on a theoretical capability requirement for humanitarian airlift only? leaving well over half the fleet unprotected?

Search me, because I haven't the faintest idea.

I suspect Chappie was raging about the obvious failure of the "leaders" to stand up for their men. Whilst the executive enjoy the fruits of their "risk free" existence...

Clockwork Mouse

31st Oct 2008, 17:00

Again, you ascribe opinions to me which I have not expressed. Nowhere do I show admiration of the current leadership of the RAF. Being a retired Pongo, I have relatively little knowledge of or aquaintance with the current RAF top brass, despite my son being in the RAF and my wife being an ex. And I probably know as much about the need for DAS in the tactical AT fleet as you know about FIBUA. However, I fail to see what effect that has on the price of fish.

Finally, thank you for your generous though misplaced "bit of advice". As you suggest I shall check to see if my vision of the world is really as black and white as you say it is. In return perhaps you will engage your brain before you write a comment and try to be a bit less condescending.

I also have a high opinion of you, based on your many admirable posts in other threads. As I do not wish to endanger that high opinion, I do not intend to post any more on this particular thread.

My best wishes to you.

nigegilb

31st Oct 2008, 17:50

CM, I am sorry if I have misrepresented your views; line drawn under here as well. If you feel I have been condascending to you, I confess it was deliberate. Please do not assume grieving families members are so easily led, for that too is condascending. You would have approved of the stoicism and dignity on show at Trowbridge. One tradition that most definitely lives on.

I think Chappie is allowed a show of emotion after everything she has been through.

Regards,

Nige

The Nip

31st Oct 2008, 20:15

With the inevitable rise in UAVs, will a Pilot who has only this experience be a future leader of the RAF?

nigegilb

31st Oct 2008, 22:11

Don't take my word for the failure of "Brass" to stand up for their men, take his;

Exclusive: SAS chief quits over 'negligence that killed his troops'

The commander of SAS troops in Afghanistan has resigned in disgust, accusing the Government of "gross negligence" over the deaths of four of his soldiers.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 10:06PM GMT 31 Oct 2008

Previous
1 of 3 Images
Next

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01054/sarah-bryant_1054782c.jpg Cpl Sarah Bryant, the first female soldier to die in Afghanistan, and her husband Carl Photo: North News

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01054/larkin-reeve-stout_1054783c.jpg L/Cpl Richard larkin, Cpl Sean Reeve and Paul Stout died in the Snatch Land Rover along with Cpl Bryant Photo: PA

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01054/snatch-land-rover_1054784a.jpg A Snatch Land Rover in Afghanistan Photo: AFP/Getty

Major Sebastian Morley claims that Whitehall officials and military commanders repeatedly ignored his warnings that people would be killed if they continued to allow troops to be transported in the vulnerable Snatch Land Rovers.
As a result, he says Cpl Sarah Bryant – the first female soldier to die in Afghanistan – and three male colleagues, the SAS soldiers, Cpl Sean Reeve, L/Cpl Richard Larkin and Paul Stout were killed needlessly.
All four died when their lightly armoured Snatch Land Rover split apart after hitting a landmine in Helmand province in June.
In his resignation letter, Major Morley, the commander of D Squadron, 23 SAS, said "chronic underinvestment" in equipment by the Ministry of Defence was to blame for their deaths.
The Old Etonian officer, a cousin to the late Diana, Princess of Wales, is understood to have described the MoD's failure to buy better equipment as "cavalier at best, criminal at worst". The resignation of Major Morley, the grandson of the newspaper tycoon Lord Beaverbrook, follows those of Col Stuart Tootal, Brig Ed Butler and a commanding officer of 22 SAS.
"We highlighted this issue saying people are going to die and now they have died," said a soldier who served with Major Morley. "Our commanding officer and RSM (Regimental Sergeant Major) tried everything in their power to stop us using Snatch. The point of failure here lies squarely with the MoD.
"The boys nicknamed Snatch the mobile coffin."
The resignation of Major Morley will reignite the debate on the standard of equipment for troops, with many front line soldiers believing that their lives are being put at risk.
In recent weeks the MoD has been criticised by coroners who said the right equipment could have saved lives.
The frailties of Snatch Land Rovers have been responsible for 34 British fatalities – or one in eight of the total killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are only now being replaced.
The reservists of 23 SAS were first asked to send a squadron of about 100 men to Helmand in Afghanistan because the regular soldiers of 22 SAS were severely stretched in Iraq. Their mission was to supervise elite elements of the Afghan police.
But the men were aghast when they were told during pre-deployment training that only Snatch Land Rovers – designed to withstand rioters in Northern Ireland – were available.
Emails were sent to Whitehall planners in the MoD, but they were told to "get on with it".
"We said this was dangerous and unacceptable," an SAS trooper said. "Snatch was highlighted as lethal and useless for two reasons – the armour does not work as rounds go through it like butter and it has no cross-country capability, denying us the element of surprise."
The soldiers also arrived in Afghanistan with a "desperate shortage" of night vision sights despite a coroner castigating the MoD over the lack of night-time goggles blamed for the death of the first British soldier to die in Helmand, Capt Jim Phillipson.
One in 10 of the SAS soldiers had to go without night sights despite many operations in the dark. The Special Forces troops are understood to have resorted to hitching lifts with the infantry in the bombproof Mastiff vehicles or march to missions.
Politicians and senior officers, were told of the SAS fears over the lack of equipment but still nothing was done, officers allege. When the SAS squadron learnt of the deaths of Cpl Bryant and her three colleagues on June 17 there was immense anger. "We thought we could muddle through and that luck was with us," one officer said. "It happened because we could not drive across country."
In a statement the MoD said: "Equipping our personnel is a clear priority and we are absolutely focused on providing them with a range of vehicles that will protect them from the ever-shifting threats posed by the enemy."

And before anyone starts slating Thomas Harding, he has done time with the Paras.

Al R

31st Oct 2008, 22:29

People have been aware of the situation for longer than the major lost men. Sorry Nige, but I have little time for stuff like that. These things take time and reacting to quickly changing enemy threats is never an instant process.

MoD to order £500 million worth of armoured vehicles for Afghanistan troops - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4841750.ece)

BBC NEWS | UK | £700m for British troop vehicles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7697393.stm)

nigegilb

31st Oct 2008, 22:40

I have lost track of the amount of times I have heard investment announcements about vehicles, this latest one is short on detail. Appreciate your point A1 but I first landed in Afg in Jan 2002, that is longer in duration than 2nd world war. Soldiers were being blown up in Iraq in 2004. It doesn't take that long fella. These people were deployed when the threat was widely known and all they were offered was "snatch."

Top Brass knowingly deployed into Afg in 2006 with lack of kit, equipment and support. And still they committed troops.

"Can do" became the way to promotion and also the achilles heel. I hope our campaign might have shifted the debate somewhat, but how do you change a culture? A culture of making do and relying on luck.

Strikes me that the wrong person resigned here.

Al R

31st Oct 2008, 22:45

Ultimately, there's only so much money.. does that make it easier or better, nope. But lets be honest.. resigning over a dragging £1 billions investment is not going to make a difference. If anything, it'll just drag things out further as new heads grapple with problems.

nigegilb

31st Oct 2008, 22:59

Not sure how many SAS reservists there are in 23, it is a small group though and I don't need to imagine how personal it can get. One of the families of a snatch death is pursuing the Govt through the Courts, hate to get cynical, but this is proving to be another way of achieving effective procurement. One wonders why this is necessary when we have such capable chaps in charge full of service ethos.

From your article, Lord Guthrie does not agree with you either;

General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, the former Chief of the Defence Staff and now a patron of the United Kingdom National Defence Association, which campaigns for better conditions for the Armed Forces, said: “Defence has been underfunded and risks have been taken with security and the size and equipping of our Armed Forces for many years. The Government has been forced by events and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan to urgently find additional funding, but it is too little and too late. Despite repeated warnings our services are neglected and under-resourced. This has cost lives.”

Al R

31st Oct 2008, 23:09

I don't think its an issue of who is at the helm.. its as much as anything, there simply being no money and too many jobs to do and not enough resources. I'm not defending the g'ment, I'm saying that resigning would make no difference - prob makes things worse.

nigegilb

31st Oct 2008, 23:17

I don't expect he thinks his resignation will make the slightest bit of difference...

Have a good weekend.

Just for fun let's do a quick comparison between UK MoD and Aussie procurement. Note the dates.

12 June 2006;

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we on these Benches, too, extend our condolences to the family of the soldier killed in Afghanistan yesterday. Our thoughts at this time are also with the two soldiers who were seriously injured yesterday, and we wish them a speedy recovery. I thank the Minister for his reply and understand completely that any answer that he gives must not prejudice troop protection, but the Snatch Land Rover is not remotely adequate for patrolling areas where insurgents use landmines. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will provide our soldiers with equipment that is fit for this role? What assessment have the Government made of the RG-31 which, with its V-shaped undercarriage, has a greater resilience to IEDs and which the Americans have bought in large numbers just for this role?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I do not accept that Snatch Land Rovers are not appropriate for the role. We must recognise the difference between protection and survivability. It is important that we have the trade-offs that we need for mobility. The Snatch Land Rover provides us with the mobility and level of protection that we need.
We had 14 RG-31s in Bosnia, which we took out of service some time ago due to difficulties with maintenance. We have looked at the RG-31 alongside a number of alternatives for our current fleet and concluded that the size and profile did not meet our needs. Size is important in the urban environment. The RG-31 cannot access areas that Snatch Land Rovers can get to.

Just to underline the hopeless performance of the incompetents running british Military this is a potted history of the Aussie response in Iraq and Afg. Remember the first Aussie herc to get foam was in Dec 2004 one month BEFORE XV179 was shot down.

"The Bushmaster 4x4 armoured vehicle is currently deployed in southern Iraq with the Australian Army's Al Muthanna Task Group. The Bushmaster armoured vehicle, developed by Thales Australia (formerly ADI Limited) in Australia is in full production at Thales's engineering and manufacturing facility at Bendigo, Victoria.
The Australian Army has tested the vehicle over thousands of kilometres in the extreme climatic conditions and terrain from sub-zero mountain areas to desert and tropical conditions in north Australia. In July 2002, the Australian Army awarded a contract to ADI Limited for 300 Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicles in six variants: troop transport, ambulance, direct fire, mortar, engineer and command.
Article ContinuesThe first of 300 Bushmaster vehicles was delivered to the Australian Army in August 2004 and the vehicle was operationally deployed to Iraq in April 2005 and Afghanistan in September 2005. Deliveries are scheduled to complete in 2008. In June 2006, the first batch of 152 troop transport variants completed delivery. Delivery of the command variant is underway.
In February 2006, ADI signed a licensing agreement with Oshkosh Truck Corporation of USA to market, manufacture and support the Bushmaster for North American customers and countries eligible for foreign military sales. In January 2007, Oshkosh was awarded a contract by the US Marine Corps for two category II Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles, to be based on the Bushmaster, which will then undergo testing at the Aberdeen Proving Ground.
"The Australian Army have tested the Bushmaster armoured
vehicle over thousands of kilometres in extreme climatic conditions."
In August 2006, the Royal Netherlands Army placed a contract for 25 Bushmaster vehicles, for operations in Afghanistan. For speed of deployment, the vehicles are being supplied from those already delivered to the Australian Army. 12 vehicles are being fitted with Thales SWARM remote-controlled weapon system and all vehicles have the Thales SOTAS M2 multimedia communication system and Thales Claire thermal imager. The vehicles were deployed to Afghanistan in October 2006. In November 2007, the Netherlands Army ordered an additional five vehicles to replace vehicles damaged in Afghanistan.
In September 2006, it was announced that Australian Army Bushmaster vehicles would be fitted with a Remote Weapon Station (RWS), for added troop protection. 44 Raven R-400 weapon stations, from Recon Optical of the USA and Electro Optic Systems (EOS) of Australia, have been ordered and upgraded vehicles are to enter service in 2008.
In December 2006, the Australian Army ordered a further 143 vehicles. The additional vehicles are to be delivered by 2009. In August 2007, the procurement of another 250 vehicles was announced.
In May 2008, under an urgent operational requirement, the UK placed an order for 24 Bushmaster vehicles for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan."

Al R

1st Nov 2008, 08:33

Cheers Nige, have a good weekend too. I have huge amounts of respect for Lord Astor who I know to be dedicated to his brief.

cazatou

1st Nov 2008, 09:12

Al R

"I don't think its an issue of who is at the helm..... there simply being no money."

Between 1999 - 2002 the UK Treasury (at the instigation of the then Chancellor - Mr Gordon Brown) sold 395 tonnes of gold at an average price of $275.6 per troy ounce.

Gold closed on the New York market last night at $723.7 per troy ounce.

Perhaps Mr Brown should consider the notice that President Truman kept on his desk - it read "The Buck Stops Here."

Al R

1st Nov 2008, 09:25

Caza,

I wasn't offering excuses, more an explanation.

For the record, the Tories haven't made as much capital out of that as they could have done. Brown ignored BoE advice to auction it off or to wait. The BoE decided it had to then go on record with the g'ment as saying it was therefore, acting purely as an agent for in effect, an insistant client (Brown) who was ignoring advice.

But put into context, the £1 billion we lost through that was nothing compared to John Major losing £3.3 billions when he tried, and failed to prop up Sterling.

cazatou

1st Nov 2008, 12:17

Al R

One of us needs a new battery in the calculator.

The difference between what Mr Brown sold the gold for and last nights closing price was $448.1 per Troy ounce.

1 metric tonne = 32150.74 Troy ounces.

The difference, per tonne, comes to $14,406,746.59.

Mr Brown sold 395 tonnes.

My calculator makes that $5,690,664,903

Prudence?

Al R

1st Nov 2008, 13:34

I mentioned £1 billion because thats a dead cert figure - your sum is hypothetical to an extent because the capital realised by the sale would have been transferred from being potential assets and/or liabilities sitting in a vault, to liquidated capital and then spent building something which was needed and which would have cost a damned site more in 'x' year's time. What was criminal was not the decision just in itself, but the way it was handled.

Brown announced a 'restructuring of the UK’s reserve holdings to achieve a better balance in the portfolio' by increasing the amount held in currency against the amount previously held in commodity assets. In other words, he took the money. He announced a sale of (initially) 125 tons of gold which represented 3% of our reserves. Of course, every trader and his dog laughed like lunatics because they then knew exactly what was going to happen, how much the market was going to be hot with, and for how long. Brown had no choice though - he needed the money to spend his way to an election victory.

So the free market artificially depressed the price and he and his big mouth was stuffed. Actually though, what happened was that his figures included that 'stock' which g'ment borrows against on the international currency markets, rather than the gold reserves actually owned outright by Britain and sitting in a vault. So there were also longer term hidden savings as well. Grant Thornton determined that the figures was somewhere between 1 and 2 billions that we screwed up by, in real terms. Speak to a bullion dealer even now, mention the 'Brown Bottom' and they'll start crying/laughing.

Macro-economic stupidity, just politics or treason? You decide. But we needed the capital to pay for funding essential things like motorways in Poland, the £.3 billions Qinetiq balls up and Iraq so we (he!) had no choice. But it wasn't £6 billions. The BBC estimated £3 billions last year, but in 'x' years time it will have cost us another figure.. at what point do you draw the line and factor in the good (ha) that the sale bought?

BBC - Press Office - The Money Programme: Gold Fever! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/06_june/13/gold.shtml)

A2QFI

2nd Nov 2008, 09:13

I am sure that the Prime Minster is a potential target for assassins but why does he have a better armoured vehicle for getting around London than our tropps do for getting round the sandpits! I understand that His Toniness has got one too, and he isn't even in the Government, luckily for us!

Al R

2nd Nov 2008, 09:35

This is going to seem contrary to my post earlier which suggested that the reason the modified wagons hadn't been sent to theatre so soon, was because there was no money. There IS no money, that part is right enough, but you have to wonder why the g'ment can spend tens of billions on an overdraft at the drop of a hat for some banks, but not half a billion on the troops at the drop of a hat.

QfD speaks out. :rolleyes:

BBC NEWS | UK | Minister 'horrified' by SAS claim (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7704276.stm)

Tourist

2nd Nov 2008, 15:48

One point which is worth making is that the US special forces bought landrovers not too long ago because they think it has a very useful role in certain areas.

No axe to grind, and never been a ground type, but the US have never been short of money and they still want them.

CirrusF

3rd Nov 2008, 12:05

I'm with Al R on this. I thought it irresponsible of the Major to go public, knowing that the sensationalist public perception of SAS would make his letter headline news. In reality he was a very small cog in a big machine and in no position to judge the bigger picture of priorities in public spending and military procurement.

For sure he should have used his position to the best of his powers internally to get the best equipment for his troops possible, but going public was wrong. I suspect that there may well be other reasons for his "resignation" which have not been made public.

nigegilb

3rd Nov 2008, 12:46

You ever had to ride in a Snatch in Afg or Iraq Cirrus?

No, thought not.........

Personally I think Quentin Davies is a heroic politician. Wow he even changed from Conservative to Labour so he could serve the British people.

A man of far greater moral courage than Major Morley.

I agree with you, these Army types, should just wind it in and get on with it like men.

A2QFI

3rd Nov 2008, 13:10

Quentin Davies' comments are ignorant and self-serving, quite like him. Does he really think that any commander is sending his men out in Snatch Landrovers if there is anything else available in Theatre? As ever, the Army is doing its best with the outdated junk it is given to work with, and men are dying as a result of poor decisions, made at a very high level, and funding shortages, because tax payer funds are saving private banks (NR etc) from the folly of their own policies. It is a scandal which will not go away beause some MP says everything is OK and claims that the fault lies with the commanders on the ground in the area of operations.

nigegilb

3rd Nov 2008, 14:26

Davies will not be able to look any army commander in the eye ever again.

His position looks to have become instantly untenable, from now he should be known as TCDavies.

He makes Hoon and Ainsworth look like little treasures. Hope the SAS arrange for him to take a ride in a Snatch next time the nasty liitle pr**k visits 'Gan.

CirrusF

3rd Nov 2008, 14:56

You ever had to ride in a Snatch in Afg or Iraq Cirrus?

No, thought not.........

So you think only people who have actually driven a Snatch in Iraq or Gan are qualified to have any opinion on this? It is patently obvious that it is not an ideal vehicle for most missions in Afghanistan - but that does not justify an officer resigning in protest.

FWIW I spent plenty of time driving Snatches around in Bosnia (see below!), including driving through Gjorni Vakuf at least once a week and there were plenty of bullets flying around then, and outside of the routes cleared by the RE there were plenty of landmines too. There were at least two snatch fatalities due to landmines that I can recall. I'm not claiming it was as dangerous as Gan, but they certainly weren't ideal vehicles for Bosnia either.
http://i417.photobucket.com/albums/pp254/cirrusf/image0000208A.jpg

Chugalug2

3rd Nov 2008, 15:22

CirrusF:

It is patently obvious that it is not an ideal vehicle for most missions in Afghanistan - but that does not justify an officer resigning in protest.

I don't think that the good major resigned because the snatch LR is not ideal for AFG! I think he resigned because it is decidedly UNIDEAL, enabling the deaths of those he commanded. It is Unfit For Purpose, along with so much of the kit with which our armed forces are currently sent to war. At least Army Commanders resign over such scandal, their RAF equivalents adopting CirrusF's stance that to do so is not justified. I know which ones I'd want commanding me.
As to money, "There is None" are weasel words. Seeing as it is the declared policy of this government(!!??**) to spend its way out of this recession by carrying out public works, may I suggest each project, be it School, Hospital, Railway, Olympic Infrastructure, etc bear a name of those who have given their lives for us because their equipment (aircraft, vehicle, radio etc) was unfit for use? Not justified? Thought not.

minigundiplomat

3rd Nov 2008, 15:29

Cirrus,

there is a sh1tload of difference between the Balkans, where legacy mines existed (and in fair numbers in some areas), and Afghanistan/Iraq where some sneaky blighter goes and digs a shaped charge into the tarmac overnight on a safe route.

The problem with this forum is there is a lot of retiree's judging the present conflict by their experiences in past conflicts. The present conflicts defy comparison. Ive spent time in NI,Bosnia,Kosovo and Sierra Leonne and can guarantee you the present situation in Afghanistan is very, very different.

I say hats off to the Major. And unless your speaking from an informed position, I suggest you bugger off to the airline forums where you belong.

You know who you are.

taxydual

3rd Nov 2008, 16:39

What amazes me is that a Major (albeit) a reservist, can resign. It's a shame that his troop's, and the troop's he's supporting, don't have the same option

CirrusF

3rd Nov 2008, 17:50

Minigundiplomat:

I did point out in my post that Balkans is not as dangerous as Afghanistan, though during the worst of it the casualty rate was about 5-6 per month which is what we have approximately now.

My original point stands - the Major was a junior officer who by no means is in a position to judge where the priorities in spending lie, and moreover he used the sensationalist name of his unit to attract big headlines to one particular issue. Resigning over an issue like that helps nobody, let alone the troops he claims to have in his interests. If everybody in the military resigned because they reckoned their kit was not good enough we'd only have a few Typhoon pilots left.

If you think your kit is not good enough, yes argue vociferously through the chain of command, but don't go around undermining the work of others by grabbing sensational headlines for one particular issue, and thereby possibly diverting funds and resources away from another program.

And you make snide remarks about "veterans" spouting off about their experiences in other conflicts. Well maybe you should try listening to them, and reading some of their experiences. In the five years we've been in Afghanistan, we've lost less people than were lost in a minute in some of our previous conflicts.

Finally, if you think it shows good leadership to resign because you think kit is not good enough, why don't you resign yourself? Or do you not have the courage of your convictions?

Biggus

3rd Nov 2008, 18:33

No doubt I will be 'flamed' for sticking my head above the parapit, but....

I thought I read in one of the newspapers that the Major in question had argued/protested repeatedly through his chain of command BEFORE his unit deployed to Afghanistan that the snatch landrover was not a suitable vehicle for the work his unit would be doing. He was told to 'get on with it....' I believe.

Politicians can argue that other vehicles are available, and they are, in the theatre in general, but it would appear, perhaps because they were a specialist unit, that they were not availabl to the Major's command.

As for resigning over it or not, a personal choice, and I can't criticise him for doing so...

minigundiplomat

3rd Nov 2008, 19:10

Finally, if you think it shows good leadership to resign because you think kit is not good enough, why don't you resign yourself? Or do you not have the courage of your convictions? Today 17:39

12 months to my IPP and Im gone, fear not. But when I do go, Im not going to come on here second guessing those that remain. The Major (not technically a junior officer) was the man on the ground, and deserves our support.
Easy to make a judgement from the safety of Paris, but there lieth a whole different historical perspective.

nigegilb

3rd Nov 2008, 19:19

Cirrus, respect to you for your time in the Balkans, I had a quick look and I can find four British Army deaths to landmines in Balkans and one death to mine clearance. I have found one reference to a vehicle and surprise surprise it was a Landrover. And that is during the period 1993-2000.

I have respect for anyone who has done the job and clearly everyone reacts to what they have seen and done in very different ways. There have been over 30 deaths attributable to poorly defended vehicles in Afg/Iraq but the news story concerning the resignation of a senior SAS officer is the first time I have seen the Snatch Landrover make headline news. Make no mistake, MoD is massively on the defensive now and court cases are in the offing.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Major's actions as not achieving anything. In my personal experience raising matters such as these in public can be highly effective.

This is what TCDavies has said today, as he desperately clings on to the trappings of ministerial office.

Davies apologises over kit comments

Defence equipment minister Quentin Davies has apologised for any offence caused after he appeared to dismiss concerns raised by a resigning SAS officer.

Mr Davies told MPs he had said sorry to Des Feely, father of Corporal Sarah Bryant, who was the first female soldier to be killed in Afghanistan, after Mr Feely accused him of insulting the memory of those who have fallen in the conflict.

The minister had previously described Major Sebastian Morley's accusation that the MoD was guilty of "gross negligence" for failing to provide supply better kit as a "travesty". He also said casualties sometimes resulted after commanders chose the wrong kit for operations.

His comments were seized upon by angry Tory MPs at Commons question time, with shadow defence secretary Liam Fox labelling them a "disgrace" which amounted to an "arrogant dismissal of a loyal and committed officer".

Tory former Cabinet minister Douglas Hogg said the comments were "deeply offensive" and damaging to morale, while former Army officer Crispin Blunt argued it was "unsustainable" for a minister to make such remarks.

But after former SAS officer Andrew Robathan asked Defence Secretary John Hutton to apologise, Mr Davies rose to defend himself. Mr Davies said: "You obviously don't know that earlier outside the House I already expressed to the father of one of our gallant soldiers who has died and he said, not directly to me but to the media I understood, he had been upset by my remarks.

"I apologised unreservedly to him and expressed my great regret - obviously any offence was entirely inadvertent, I hope you recognise that. If I have some reason to suppose that operational commanders had been offended by the remarks I'd made then again I would apologise to them pretty directly."

Mr Davies - who defected from Tory to Labour last year and became a minister in the recent reshuffle - made the remarks after Maj Morley had hit out at the continued use of Snatch Land Rovers in Afghanistan.

Repeated warnings about their suitability were ignored by military commanders and Whitehall officials, Maj Morley claimed, leading to the needless deaths of four soldiers.

Cpl Bryant died alongside SAS servicemen Corporal Sean Reeve, Lance Corporal Richard Larkin and Paul Stout when their Snatch Land Rover was blown up in June.

airborne_artist

3rd Nov 2008, 19:31

NG - Davies should watch his six - Andrew Robathan is not easily made angry and I heard he was incandescant at the end of last week. When he's finished there's also Adam Holloway, also ex-Guards/Hereford who could finish Davies in short order.

Cirrus wrote the Major was a junior officerIt's normal to reckon that anyone (officer or OR) in SF is easily capable of holding down the rank above the one they wear, so while he was wearing just one crown, I'd view him as an acting Lt Col in all other respects.

nigegilb

5th Nov 2008, 07:04

AA are you talking to Holloway or something? Looks like he has come calling for Quentin Davies a day after you predicted it. Holloway is a very impressive MP, I had contact with him during foam campaign and I know others who have met him in theatre. There is no bull*******g this guy.

Today's DT;

The Special Forces soldiers "tore their hair out" at being allocated the flimsy vehicles after Cpl Sarah Bryant and three of her male colleagues were killed when their's was blown apart by a mine, Tory MP and former army officer Adam Holloway told a parliamentary inquiry.
His evidence intensified the pressure on defence minister Quentin Davies, who has faced fierce criticism for claiming at the weekend that SAS commanders had not been complaining about their equipment.
On Saturday, The Daily Telegraph disclosed that senior SAS commander Major Sebastian Morley had resigned over the MoD's "gross negligence" in failing to provide an alternative to Snatch Land Rovers, which have now been linked to the deaths of 34 British soldiers.
Major Morley blamed the vehicles for the deaths of Cpl Bryant and her colleagues and said the lack of equipment was "cavalier at best, criminal at worst". He also told how SAS commanders had complained to the Ministry of Defence about their use.
In attempting to rubbish his claims, Mr Davies said "100 per cent" of the troops he had spoken to in Afghanistan were happy with their kit. He also seemed to suggest that Major Morley may have a "wrong choice" in selecting Snatch for the mission that ended in Cpl Bryant's death - despite it being the only vehicle available.
However, Mr Holloway's evidence directly contradicted his claims and led senior military figures and opposition politicians to call on Mr Davies to "consider his position" . The minister has already been forced into a humiliating apology for rubbishing Major Morley's resignation claims and offending Cpl Bryant's father.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said for Mr Davies to blame commanders in the field for Government failures was "grotesque, completely unacceptable and damaging to morale".
The shadow defence minister Gerald Howarth added: "This is the second example in two days of commanders being denied equipment which they had requested.
"Quentin Davies has been extraordinarily cavalier about the requests that commanders have made from the field. If he cannot fulfil the role of equipping them properly then he should consider his position."
Mr Holloway's evidence came during questions from the Commons' Defence Committee on the state of the Armed Force to the chief MoD civil servant Sir Bill Jeffrey yesterday.
The former regular soldier told the parliamentary hearing that an SAS commander was "pulling his hair out making urgent requests that they should not have to have Snatch" before they deployed to Afghanistan this summer.
The unit "despaired" after numerous requests were ignored with bosses telling them the Snatch was suitable for their task, he said.
Despite the four fatalities in Helmand in June, the soldiers from 21 SAS were told Snatch – designed for rioting in Northern Ireland - was still a suitable vehicle for the job of training Afghan police.
The committee was also told troopers from 21 SAS - one of two SAS reservist battalions - even had to beg for machine guns off other Territorial Army battalions because they were denied basic equipment. Officers had to make a "commander's request" for long range weapons to use against the Taliban as they were only equipped with short range Diemarco rifles and Minimi machine guns, Mr Holloway said.
In the wake of his evidence, Major Gen Patrick Cordingley, who commanded British forces in the first Gulf War said: "I find Quentin Davies' position and comments very difficult to stomach as the commanders had no option but to use Snatch. Ministers should never criticise our officers."
Further pressure will be piled onto Mr Davies in an Early Day Motion laid by the Tory front bench on Wednesday, which says the House "dissociates" itself from Mr Davies' comments over Major Morley's resignation.
"This House believes that when a senior officer resigns citing a specific reason the resignation should be treated with the utmost seriousness and that the integrity or motivation of the officer concerned should not be publicly impugned by a Government Minister.
"Furthermore, the House is appalled that the Minister should blame commanders for making the wrong decision relating to equipment used for operations when the choice of equipment was not available. This House therefore calls for the Minister to fully apologise to Major Morley and our commanders in Afghanistan."