HVD,
Earlier in in this thread I mentioned that lack of corporate experience with 2-crew, EFIS, ETOPS jets was one - just one - of the reasons why a fleet of 10 interim transport jets couldn't possibly be operating in support of the Herrick airbridge within a timescale of 9-months as claimed by some contributors. The subsequent debate then seemed to have focused on the 2-crew and EFIS aspects, and has not ventured into the whole framework required to get a new aircraft into service, including issues like regulatory responsibility, which some seem to regard as just MoD foot-dragging.
I am not personally familiar with the introduction of the J, but my point wasn't so much about it's flight-deck but about the fact that it was originally seen as an easy step to take because of the deep corporate knowledge with the airframe. As you have said, ironing out issues with equipment and clearances for it's military functions took longer than had been expected. To perform it's military function any 'quick-solution' jet will also have to be fitted with a significant amount of new equipment and the whole platform will have to be cleared to operate under a MAR.
There is a debate running over on Arrse, featuring a very frustrated staff officer, whose job is dealing with this exact topic. I'll post of few of his quotes. Apologies for the the length, but I feel that this guys passionate postings really do show that there are guys in MoD working their guts out on these issues. If anything he shows that they aren't all quite the oily political toads that some like to believe they are:
There was time when I would have joined in any Crab bashing thread. But now, as it's my job to see the detail and try and find solutions, from a 'Defence' perspective of course, I have investigated almost every avenue and, I am afraid that the old story of operate within Defence Assumptions and 'Budgetary constraints' comes to mind (if any politician happens to be watching).
The ATF has been underfunded for 50-60 years. Why are we so surprised that it is so 'on the cusp' of failure now? Is that the fault of the Government? Or the RAF?
Do any of them have crystal balls?
We weren't truly 'expeditionary' (in today's terms) until many years after the Berlin Wall came down - how many of you saw the end of the Cold War?
Have you no idea how MOD (or any other part of Government) works? I write a paper outlining the requirement and making recommendations. It gets staffed at desk level, then 1, 2, 3 and ultimately 4* level (for AT amongst other things, tomorrow actually).
4* grownups come to a decision.
Advice given to Ministers.
Ministers are convinced. Or not.
Treasury is convinced. Or not.
If HMT smiles, then C17s et al appear as if by magic. If they don't then tough s*it, carry on normal jogging. Don't hold your breath given the credit crunch.
We have come up with numerous options, believe you me.
It takes time.
Only in your world could you justify the requirement, get the finance, get the aircraft, modify them to TES, train the crews and engineers and get them into service in a few short weeks.
It takes years FFS and it costs a fortune.
Of your taxes and mine.
If you want to know why it takes a long time, talk to the politicians that fund Defence, don't criticise me, and many other military officers (and civil servants, I might add) that spend all the hours that God sends trying to make things better as if we're some kind of conspiracy. Precisely what you are doing in this respect eludes me, apart from sniping from the sidelines.
On second thoughts, are you one of these barking mad civilian opportunists that email me with suggestions as to how they can solve our AT problems at a stroke (now that the financial pressure's on and you're finding it tough to find work for your airframes) and then, when I fcuk you off because you have no earthly chance of meeting the requirement, threaten to write to the Daily Telegraph/your MP?
We originally asked for 8 x C17.
We got 4.
Now, very slowly, and due to commitments (and mainly due to the work of the very MOD staff officers that you love to slag off) we have 6. and perhaps, only perhaps, we may have 8.
But of course, it will all be down to 'people' (and I use the term very loosely) like you and all the others out there who have no responsibility and no accountability.
I think not.
Any increase in our capability is all down to serving officers and men in squadrons and guys in theatre who see what's required, busy staff officers in PJHQ who support it, and more busy guys and gals (military and civilian) in the centre who push it through.
I do this every fcuking day. You just toy with it on a temporary basis with little or no accurate knowledge but a whole sh1tload of 'opinion'.
It is immensely frustrating but it's important and the outside perception needs to be dealt with. I am simply continuously gobsmacked by the one-eyed perception of almost everyone.
Still, now that I have 'proof' that almost all Tristar delays are caused by weather or DAS problems............................
I very nearly didn't answer as it really isn't in my interest to resurrect the thread either but - feel free to reproduce my words on PPrune or anywhere else. I don't care - they're the truth and I shall stand by them.
It's not a process issue - it's a finance issue, simple as. Your point about civvie carriers is tosh. They might be able to get the planes but they can't meet TES and never will.
And as for 'doing different' it's the use of commercial business practice that has got us into many of these problems in the first place!
Well, that all depends on who think my colleagues are. The FSTA PFI deal was done some time ago, probably before the whole Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns kicked off - I don't know. As was A400M.
Unlike your fantasy world, where you can simply order aircraft that miraculously meet the required standard in no time at all and there are lines of fully trained air and ground crew crying out to man them I work in a world where I have to do the best with what I have.
And - do you know what? It's made a lot easier when I'm not doing it with the background noise of people who clearly don't have a clue what they are talking about. This may not be your fault as you may not have access to the details of the requirement. That's fair enough, but I'm afraid it is the constant sniping that tends to make me drive my fist through the PC screen both at work and in my flat.
Oh, and you mentioned earlier that you hadn't criticized me and others in MOD about the airbridge?
You have - every time you say we aren't relevant, that we have no impact or effect, that we aren't in touch, you criticize me.
I know what I'm talking about and it would seem that you don't, apart from saying that somehow UK plc should shift to a Total War footing.
It would of course, be nice if we did. But at the end of the day, the audit of war will say that actually we suffered minimally in blood and perhaps more in treasure (for what is a different matter). If you want the HMT response to that to change (and your taxes to increase) then speak to politicians -don't get on Arrse and hit the very people who are trying to do their best.