"Sort out the Navy!" - Lord West

[Churchills Ghost]

Lord West, the former First Sea Lord and a Falklands veteran, suggests it is "bonkers" that the Royal Navy has only 19 frigates and destroyers. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9153258/Britain-has-to-decide-upon-the-Royal-Navys-role.html)

[ricardian]

A Pathe film clip (http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=84609) from the time when Britain had a Navy

[Evalu8ter]

Yawn - off we go again...

When will retired senior officers stop spouting off? It's no different to retired airships bemoaning a lack of FJ Sqns or Generals getting dewy-eyed at scrapped regiments and the number of tubes and tanks...let alone parachuting.

These "experts" were at the vanguard of a generation that always wanted the next bigger, better, faster, shinier toy but didn't (ever) have the money to pay for them and now seem astounded that they can't have the high-tech toys in the same number as the old toys they replace. If a Typhoon is 10 times better than an F3 then you need substantially less, the same with T45 v T42. You can't have it both ways. If these officers had decided on a proportion of the forces being "low tech, low cost, high numbers" for peacetime Ops and a bit of concurrency, then we'd still have flotillas of ships, stations full of aircraft and parade grounds full of tanks. They didn't. They acquiesced to a defence policy built around maintaining BAES and buying their products to protect Britain PLC. If they didn't like it they should have had the guts to resign whilst serving rather than carp at their successors from the £300 a day pension-boosting House of Lords.

Oh, that's become a rant....sorry...

[Churchills Ghost]

Ricardian - its too painful to watch!

[Airborne Aircrew]

The money would be there if it wasn't being piled on the sick, lame and lazy that multiply exponentially.

[The Helpful Stacker]

I spy a Daily Mail reader.

Sick, lame and lazy have little to do with the fact that successive governments and their senior officer lackies have repeatedly thrown one of the largest defence budgets in the world up the wall or into the pockets of BAe for this season's must have untried and untested must have toys.

[LeCrazyFrog]

@Evalu8ter : I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head...And as some guy said : At this pace, in 50 years' time, we will have a one aircraft Air Force and a one ship Navy, but it's going to be a f***ing aircraft and f****ing ship!!!

[Airborne Aircrew]

Helpful:

Go take a look at what is spent on benefits, pensions, health etc.

Then take a look at the pitiful amount spent on protecting those entitlements.

Nothing to do with the Daily Mail. I'll agree that the budgets have been utterly misspent but when you spend almost three times as much on welfare than you do on defending the country there isn't much in the budgets in the first place.

Linky (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html)

[dallas]

Cue the I'm the last one in the Air Force... and 'last one left switch the lights out' posters...it's irresistible, like moths to the light - watch. :E

[Not_a_boffin]

Sick, lame and lazy have little to do with the fact that successive governments and their senior officer lackies have repeatedly thrown one of the largest defence budgets in the world up the wall or into the pockets of BAe for this season's must have untried and untested must have toys.

The real problem is that MOD as an entity no longer has even a rudimentary ability to understand what things "should" cost and therefore no ability to argue the toss on a credible basis with the contractors (and it ain't just BAES, although they are the most direct manifestation).

Instead, MoD employ a whole host of consultancy companies to "help" them with understanding cost. Trouble is that many of these consultancies are no more informed than MoD about the technical and engineering elements of these projects and end up falling back on ill-defined "risk" fudge factors and complicated "models" that end up obscuring the real elements of interest, bloating the budget and because the budget is rarely kept under discretion, usually end up as the "price" - a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's not in any way to suggest that all contractors are sharks - far from it. The process needs to work both ways, but I'm afraid that ignorance and a bloated approvals system militate against common sense ever breaking out.

[Widger]

Evalu8tor

:D:D:D

[The Helpful Stacker]

Go take a look at what is spent on benefits, pensions, health etc.

Whilst the benefit system is a concern what is the issue with money being spent on pensions and health?

[chinook240]

Evalu8tor

:D:D:D

Seconded!

[Lightning Mate]

Whilst the benefit system is a concern what is the issue with money being spent
on pensions and health?

It does not serve as a deterrent to would-be adversaries. Watch Argentina!

Seemples.

Evalu8tor,

Thirded!

:D:D:D:D

[The Helpful Stacker]

It does not serve as a deterrent to would-be adversaries. Watch Argentina!

What a bizarre argument. If its purely about numbers then the surface fleet was far larger back in 1982 and that didn't seem to act as a deterrent either.

Of course speaking in the present rather than looking back with misty eyes at a world that was, just how much of an actual military threat is Argentina these days to an apparently improverished (no thanks to all them im-er-grants and dole scroungers eh?) UK military?

[Airborne Aircrew]

Whilst the benefit system is a concern what is the issue with money being spent on pensions and health?

Where do I start? I'll keep it simple. The NHS is a disaster of biblical proportions with money wasted left and right. I have nothing against reasonable pensions. But, alas, not all are so "reasonable"...

[The Helpful Stacker]

Yeah, the NHS is a disaster. Universial, free at point of use healthcare for less than per person than the USA pays per person (though it doesn't mean those people get healthcare, just that they pay for it) to prop up a non-universal, not-free at point of use healthcare system.:ugh:

Who have the 'unreasonable' pensions btw?

[waco]

Airborne Aircrew

Really hope you never get sick or made redundant............

[Neptunus Rex]

Whilst admiring the sheer size, firepower and presence of the Royal Navy in that Royal Review, does anyone else agree with me that the FAA was seen to be somewhat lacking in formation flying skills?

[Airborne Aircrew]

Really hope you never get sick or made redundant............

And I wish the same for you...

Because you'd expect me to pay for you.

I have no problem helping. But I resent institutionalized theft that only really benefits those seeking power.

[The Helpful Stacker]

But I resent institutionalized theft that only really benefits those seeking power.

Yet you seem to be in favour of direct taxation (which I guess is your 'institutionalised theft') being used to fund the military.

Who ultimately benefits from the military industrial complex most? Those seeking power or those who rely upon concepts such as universal medicine and a state pension?

[Roadster280]

Who ultimately benefits from the military industrial complex most?

All those who aren't speaking German/Russian/Japanese against their will, I should think.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Roadster:

Thank you for a most incisive response. So many people seem to have forgotten that one cannot sustain all the magnanimity without a way to protect it. They keep throwing away their national security and therefore their lifestyle for the price of a flat screen TV and their weekly packs of fags.

[Scuttled]

Hmmmmm. NHS and taxes......... Bit of thread drift gents?

:ok:

[hval]

Scuttled,

Hmmmmm. NHS and taxes......... Bit of thread drift gents?

Not really, get rid of the NHS and buy more planes, ships,boats, tanks and things warry. Or fill in more potholes.

[Willard Whyte]

As a soon to be civvie I vote fill in the potholes.

[brakedwell]

They can't even repair potholes properly :}

[NutLoose]

If a Typhoon is 10 times better than an F3 then you need substantially less

Whilst I agree with that idea in principal, it's all ok until we actually go up against some fuzzy wuzzies that have a state of the art Airforce, and more than we have....

Quality over quantity is fine as long as you can knock down what they can throw at you, these days we can't, let's face it, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, none of these could we have done on our own, once upon a time we could have, today we would struggle to invade Jersey!

If Russia decided to send a surface fleet to penetrate UK waters, what Naval assets would we have to send out to intercept them all? The Mersey ferry?

[Airborne Aircrew]

Nutloose:

today we would struggle to invade Jersey!

Let's be honest... We'd have a job defending ourselves from an invasion by Jersey...:sad:

[Heathrow Harry]

in most large conflicts you find that after a year or so of disasters the politicians run off every senior officer over the age of 48 at which point things start to improve.............

The Great Duke fought his last battle at 46...........

[Bastardeux]

AA

I largely agree with you - by spending eye watering amounts of money on social security, not only have we created a culture of dependency and expectancy but we've also abdicated our human responsibilities towards one another and our society at large. The anonymous 'they' now bear the responsibility of everything from keeping the streets clean, to what happens if I'm unemployed; theoretically, if everyone between the age of 16 and say 50, gave up one day a month to social service and security, then that's probably around 360 million working days a year that could go towards society... it's just an elementary point about how everyone uses the welfare state and big government as an excuse to abdicate their personal responsibilities towards society, but that's an awful lot of tax revenue that could be saved by everybody chipping in! As a parting shot on the subject, how many staunch left wing supporters see a homeless guy and think "I should do something about that" - the answer is probably very, very few...the default reaction is likely to be "the government should do something about that" i.e. the anonymous 'they' should take care of it and remove money from the economy in the process!

As for healthcare, it's a little more difficult, but the same problems of unaccountability towards over-consumption exist.

Regards,
the Bastard

[foldingwings]

OK, have I got this right?

RN - circa 20 years ago: ' We need a carrier to Power Project'!

Govt of the day - 'That's a good idea - let's order 2 just in case one is in dry dock!'

RN - 'By the way, we need buckets of cash over their life to keep these things afloat!'

GotD - 'That's OK, we're Noo Labour, we've got oodles of dosh for you chaps!'

RN - 'Great Stuff, at last we can really return to the hey day of the Navy east of Suez!'

Meanwhile in the Real World:

MOD - 'Budgets getting a bit tight, Navy, you sure you still want those carriers and fancy go faster jets from the Yanks?'

RN - 'Why not, seems like a good idea and we're prepared to forego other capabilities as long as we can power project like we did in the 60s!'

MOD - 'Fairy Snuff, sailor boy! Let's cut you back in destroyers, frigates, Sea Harriers and every other capability (too many to mention) that you are prepared to relinquish!'

RN - 'That's a bloody good idea - got to keep these carriers on track and bring those Daves into service'.

MOD - 'Right Navy, you've got a flotilla of 19 warfighting vessels left!'

RN - 'Sh*t, really!'

MOD - 'Yep, but you'll still get your carriers before 2030! Dave's could be a bit tricky though as we just found out that slings and arrows to get them on and off are a bit costly!'

RN - 'Just had a thought, can we have some more boats to protect our carriers? Nineteen will never be enough to protect a HVSA!'

MOD - 'Nope! Can't afford them AND carriers!'

RN - 'Sh*t! We've just created our very own self-licking lollipop!'


And that, my friends, is how the Navy managed to get themselves in their own bloody mess!

Cancel it now before we waste any more money on the Navy's ideal of living in the past!

£500M would be a small price to pay and the savings would assist greatly in getting the MOD budget back on an even keel (pardon the pun!)

Foldie:ugh:

[Tankertrashnav]

The MOD is a disaster of biblical proportions with money wasted left and right. I have nothing against reasonable defence procurements. But, alas, not all are so "reasonable"...


Fixed that for you AA ;)

[clareprop]

f Russia decided to send a surface fleet to penetrate UK waters, what Naval assets would we have to send out to intercept them all?

American Naval assets.

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view), there's no one left to give a good thumping to - well, not like we used to anyway. If we returned to "the good old days", we'd have rather a lot of chaps and assets all Quixiotic-like, looking for a fight that they would never find.
It would seem that all the old protagonists now have more in common than they have in argument - dealing with fundamentalism.
From my viewpoint, I find the "hearts and minds" approach in Afghanistan rather daft. I can give food and money to a bloke and he'll tell me I'm wonderful. Once I leave, if someone comes in and puts a gun to the chaps head, common sense suggests, he'll tell the Gunslinger he's wonderful. So, either one is going to take these terrorists/gangsters out or declare victory and leave. If the former, no amount of sending young kids into villages with the attendant risks of ied's, is going to solve the problem. It's been tried before. As Einstein said "Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Well, I think that fits nicely with Afghanistan over the past couple of hundred years.
If one accepts that the likely world threat is now fundamentalist terrorism, then the fight is either on the streets of our cities or in the hidden training grounds. Warships, fast jets and infantry don't really seem to fit the bill. The idea is to presumably kill "senior terrorists", and on that basis, it would appear that drones, special forces and helicopter gunships can do this quite well and of course, a lot cheaper.

[Airborne Aircrew]

TTH:

I'm certainly not trying to hold up the US DoD procurement system as some kind of holy grail but how come they seem to do so much better than MoDPE or whatever it is today?

[tucumseh]

AA

MoD has a simple but effective process that is designed to avoid wasting money. It is called "Requirement Scrutiny".

It is mandated by the Chief Accounting Officer and SofS.

It is an offence to implement it, and has been since December 1992.

It is not an offence to instruct someone not to implement it (ditto).

Numerous senior staffs have reiterated and enforced this ruling, including Chiefs of Defence Procurement. Successive Ministers and PUSs have underwritten the rulings and flatly refused to overturn or expunge disciplinary records.

Some light exists at the end of the tunnel, as the Public Accounts Committee published a report in December calling for better scrutiny. However, now it has been pointed out to them (via the Chair, Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP) that their recommendations contradict MoD and Ministers, it is uncertain if they'll follow through with any action.

It is really quite simple. MoD actively and robustly defends it's right to discipline staffs under this ruling - activity which costs a lot of money. To commit ANY MoD funding/resource requires formal approval. Therefore, it can be said that it is MoD policy to waste money, or they would not be permitted the resources to support their actions.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Tec:

One can't really make this stuff up...

So, what you are saying is that it is the MoD's business to waste money, purchase useless equipment and risk the lives of those they send forward.

Or am I fantasizing? :hmm:

[tucumseh]

AA

Clearly what I say it ever so slightly tongue in cheek, but it is absolutely true. If they were serious about preventing waste, they would not go to the huge time and expense of consistently protecting and justifying the actions of those who knowingly waste, and instruct others to.

It won't have escaped you that, as the regulations require the "scrutineer" (in the case of procurers, someone with formal Technical and Financial Approval delegation) to make a declaration that a "requirement" passes scrutiny (a lengthy checklist, starting with the question "Why is it needed?"), then to make a false declaration is to commit fraud. To instruct one to make such a false declaration is incitement to commit fraud. To support the latter is conspiracy to commit fraud.

Most civil servants don't have a good word to say about their Trades Unions, but in this case the subject was raised at national level, because members who were instructed to commit this fraud where damned if they do and damned if they don't (it being an offence to refuse a legal order). Senior staffs and Ministers formally ruled that, under these circumstances, the only offence (out of those I list) was the refusal to obey. At that point, the Union withdrew and no longer supports staffs placed in this position. They call it a "Matter of Conscience", and presumably you must examine your conscience and decide if you want to be sacked for refusing to commit fraud. That is why so much waste occurs.

As I said, all the above is currently with the PAC (and the Civil Service Commission) and I'll let you know the outcome. (Which I predict will be No Further Action).

[Gaz ED]

AA,

The DoD is far from infallible. I suspect the Spam press doesn't make too much of a song and dance about delays and overruns. unlike the glorious UK media...........

Senate bill targets DOD cost overruns


Feb 25, 2009
Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced a bill this week aimed at curbing the cost and scheduling overruns on large defense contracts, reports GovExec (http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=42113&dcn=todaysnews).

Their legislation, the 2009 Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act, would require re-examination of defense contracts if their costs increase by more than 25 percent from the initial estimate.

The Defense Department’s 95 largest acquisition programs are an average of two years behind schedule and have exceeded their original budgets by a combined total of almost $300 billion, according to Levin.

The bill contains provisions that would tighten the requirements of the rarely enforced 1982 Nunn-McCurdy law, which mandates that Defense must cancel any weapons program that experiences cost overruns of more than 25 percent unless it can show that it is essential to national security, no cheaper alternative is available and the revised costs are reasonable.


The Levin-McCain bill also would require the DOD to:

Re-establish systems engineering organizations and developmental testing capabilities.
Introduce trade-offs between cost, schedule and performance early in the program cycle.
Use prototypes more often, including competitive prototypes, to prove that new technologies work before attempting to produce them.
Start an annual awards program to recognize the performance of the Defense acquisition workforce.
Establish the position of director of independent cost assessment to ensure that cost estimates for major defense acquisition programs are fair, reliable and unbiased.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Tec:

Thanks...

Gaz:

As I said, I'm not holding the US system up as any kind of standard but it just seems that American screw-ups are simply not on the same scale of pure incompetence as that of the MoD.

You may be right that it's the reporting but I would suspect that the media over here, (with it's anti-conservative and anti-military bias), would report with glee anything that would make the military look like a waste of money.

[Gaz ED]

AA,

I think the sheer scale of the US procurement system makes it easier to hide foul-ups. The F-111 is a classic example, years late, one variant cancelled, yet no-one seems to remember that UK cancelled their order, and bought F-4's instead.

The UK press love a good feeding frenzy on their latest football. It seems to be a national mental trait to only point out the bad stuff, and ignore the good.

Our American cousins are definitely possessed of a superior sense of optimism, Y'All!

[Finningley Boy]

Actually, the F4 purchase was running concurrent to the order for F111s, it was being ordered as a Hunter replacement. The nominal replacement for the F111 was the Buccaneer mark 2. However, with a transition toward the new NATO strategy of "Flexible Response" more of the Phantoms ended up in the Strike role and, of course, because the Navy didn't need as many of theirs for the new CVF Carriers they were originally expecting, the R.A.F. got some of those an' all and formed the first F4 A.D. unit out of them.:ok:

FB:)

[Gaz ED]

One stands corrected, FB.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Actually, I think you might find that the Phantom was bought to plug the gap made by the Hawker P1154 cancellation. As I remember it, the P1154 would have replaced the Hunter and the Sea Vixen.

[tucumseh]

The point I'd always make is there is a huge difference between having a bloody good go but failing to meet time, cost or performance; and knowingly wasting money and deliberately sabotaging projects for your own career ends.

The US may indeed have similar problems in always meeting T, C & P, but a question I'd ask, for example, is can they match the sheer incompetence and illegality of AMSO when, during Transition to War for GW1, they were actively scrapping our War Reserves? Lets face it, that takes some beating. (But I'm open to suggestions......).

[pr00ne]

Airborne Aircrew,


".. the media over here, (with it's anti-conservative and anti-military bias)"


WHAT!!

Have you ever read a British newspaper? Ever heard of Rupert Murdoch?

Try the Daily Telegraph (known as the Torygraph), the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, or the Sun just for a start. Then see how ridiculous and wide of the mark your above statement is.



ER, you meant the US media didn't you?

Sorry.................................

[Airborne Aircrew]

Pr00ne:

ER, you meant the US media didn't you?

No need for the apology... The comedic content of that one sentence gave me a good belly laugh... :ok:

[Impiger]

The RN planners sold their souls for 2 carriers in SDR and stuck to their guns thereafter. Ironic that the main protagonist was Admiral West!

Is that the sound of chickens I hear returning to roost?:E

[Mickj3]

Never accuse the RN of being interested in anything but furthering the cause of the RN, to the detriment of all other causes including the good of the country. As always with the RN its a case of "Im alright Jack". Having secured the Two carriers (they think) we now have lord West starting the campaign for surface ships to protect them (the navy only has 19 escorts, bleat bleat).

[Unchecked]

Totally agree Mick. If the RN concentrated more on the boats and ships they are supposed to drive and less about buying planes and helicopters to land-grab the RAFs jobs, they might not need to whinge.