Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Having spectacularly axed the Nimrod fleet the government have decided to not publish the future requirement taken from Hansard;
Quote:
Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 22 March 2011, Official Report, column 947W, on military aircraft, when he expects to publish the findings of the capability investigation on maritime surveillance capability; and if he will make a statement. [92528] 1 Feb 2012 : Column 654W Peter Luff: The Ministry of Defence has completed its capability investigation into its long term requirements for maritime surveillance capability, but I am withholding the information as its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.
Now I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but is it possible there has been an awkward, embarrassing discovery? or could this be characterised as a normal process?
To my ears it sounds like he's saying "We have no plans, we have no budget for it anyway, go away and stop asking questions that expose the incompetence of the Government!"
Location: UK (and now rarely behind enemy lines but still enjoying foreign climes.)
Posts: 1,266
Quote:
No doubt people will use this statement as a way of reinforcing their own point of view on the matter, irrespective of any alternative option!
My experience of the military, coupled with the cock-up that is the MoD, leaves me in no doubt that it is because the government has something embarrassing to hide. Plain and simple.
Biggus,
on the balance of probabilities, which is more likely: that the Russians/Chinese/North Koreans/Iranians/baddy-of-choice don't watch Sky news and therefore don't know that our Nuclear deteterant is vastly less protected than it was 2 years ago, or that the government would be embarared by the document and have therefore decided to give it the 'security isn't a dirty word, Blackadder' treatment?
answers on a postcard to:
Rt. Hon i should be shot for my incompetance MP Rm 407b Ministry of Defence Land of the Moron
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 70
Posts: 9,360
Did he answer the question?
Quote:
on military aircraft, when he expects to publish the findings of the capability investigation on maritime surveillance capability; and if he will make a statement.
Quote:
MoD has completed its investigation into its long term requirements for maritime surveillance capability,
Subtle difference here.
Quote:
withholding . . . disclosure . . . prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.
She asked about maritime capability - clearly rather limited with only short range air assets.
He said the MOD had looked at the long term requirement - nothing about the now.
Clearly highlighting the capability now - limited - would indeed be prejudicial now.
No no no, you're all wrong. The master plan is to pour a few billion tons of concrete, making the nation an integral part of the continental mainland thus negating the need for a maritime capability.
Anybody remember the MP Michael Mates? Many, many moons ago I listened to him being interviewed on the radio during a long, boring road trip. He had been on a defence committee and he explained that whenever he asked a question the MOD did not want to answer, they simply claimed the information was "classified" and prejuducial to national security. Could have been about the cost of NAAFI biscuits...made no odds.
Given that context, yer mans answer is as unwaveringly a "standard response" as all the others over the past few decades. Roughly translated it means "too difficult, go away".
Could have been about the cost of NAAFI biscuits...made no odds.
I remember the day an RAF officer was trying to tell our 2 Star that MRA4 was NOT on target (as the 2 Star had claimed), it had just slipped 4 years. The 2 Star (Director General Air Systems 2) dismissed him and turned to a more pressing matter. The cost of bananas in the Abbey Wood canteens.
For those of us that used to watch 'Yes, Minister' or 'Yes, Prime Minister' will see straight away what is going on. Those programs are as relevant today as they were the year they were broadcast.
Quote:
The Official Secrets Act is not to protect secrets, it is to protect officials.
Quote:
Stage One: Refuse to publish in the public interest saying
1. There are security considerations.
2. The findings could be misinterpreted.
3. You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation. (If there isn't one, commission it; this gives you even more time).
Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing, saying
1. It leaves important questions unanswered.
2. Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
3. The figures are open to other interpretations.
4. Certain findings are contradictory.
5. Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven't, question them yourself; then they have).
Nearly choked on my cornflakes then (late riser) (not riser sinker!) Thought somebody was taking the subject of a maritime replacement aircraft seriously for a second!
Oh goody....Another thread on MPAs - it must be at least 10 days since the last six threads on the same subject.
Maybe that's because as an island nation, it's quite important, and the Govt and MOD have made a total cock-up of it but seem unwilling to rectify the problem.
Maybe that's because as an island nation, it's quite important, and the Govt and MOD have made a total cock-up of it but seem unwilling to rectify the problem
Cause and Effect. There is no money because Mr Brown and that nice Mr Blair before him have spent it all trying to buy votes. Something has to give. Take a deep breath, accept that it has happened - constant harping will not change things.
