Have you read this crud from Lord Bach

[Navaleye]

In the telegraph - You see everything is rosy after all, Pr00ne was right all along and there's loads of money around. Comments welcome. :mad:

Sir – Nicholas Soames MP (letter, Feb 16) rehashes some tired-looking accusations. In fact, during 2003-04, the Defence Procurement Agency successfully delivered £3.7 billion of defence equipment. It delivered roll-on, roll-off ferries 20 months early and tented encampments 12 months early. Twenty-four aircraft and helicopters, four naval vessels and a range of land equipment all came on stream to result in significant improved capability.We remain committed to building new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. They will be the biggest warships ever constructed in Britain. The Chinook helicopters were contracted for under a Conservative government and suffered from inadequate investment at the early stages. The re-negotiation of the Landing Ship Dock contract with Swan Hunter represents value for money for the British taxpayer and will deliver a new class of extremely capable ships to the Royal Navy.

The Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme is the biggest and most complex private finance initiative deal ever attempted.

This Government has delivered the longest period of sustained investment in defence for generations – in marked contrast to the cuts in defence spending that characterised previous Conservative governments. The Opposition says it wants us to spend more on defence, but its plans amount to more cuts in procurement and logistical support, and the axing of more than 25,000 key personnel. If the Tories want to make defence spending an issue at the next election, we would be delighted.

Lord Bach of Lutterworth, Minister for Defence Procurement, London SW1

[Roland Pulfrew]

I read that and was aghast. I note that Min DP mentions that "this Government has delivered the longest period of sustained investment in defence for generations" but quite conveniently forgets to mention the £2.7 billion savings measures that are also being imposed on the armed forces. If they are "investing" so heavily why is the RAF about to take a mauling on its manpower and lose several bases (want to bet that announcement will be delayed until after the general election?).

Shouldn't that bit on FSTA have read:The Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme is the biggest and most complex private finance initiative deal ever attempted and is unlikely to happen due to the cost and complexity.

I note he doesn't give any more information on where the programme stands, or when a "deal" will be announced? In the meantime Flight International carries another article on the KC767 programme for the ItAF saying that flight testing is due to begin this summer with certification early next year for a first ac delivery of next summer!! And they started their programme several years after the UK!!:\ :\

[BEagle]

If Smiths can get their pods to work, of course, eh Roly.....

'Barbara' does spout utter bull$hit, doesn't he? FSTA (F*****g Stupid Tanker Acquisition) has slid so far to the right it's a total joke. Japan, Germany and Italy will soon all have 21st Century tankers of their own, as will Canada and Australia.

Whereas the Rental Air Farce will have to hire someone else's...

[airborne_artist]

How about we construct a serious publishable reply to the letter, and submit it to the DT. I'm happy to put my name to it if reqd., but there must be people on this group whose expertise/signature would look more convincing

[Navaleye]

AA, I think that is a darned good idea. Put the focus on some hard facts for a change.

[airborne_artist]

This in today's (28 Feb) Telegraph:

Sir - Lord Bach criticises Nicholas Soames for his observations on the failures in the Government's defence procurement record (letter, Feb 24). But it is the constitutional duty of the Opposition to look through and brush aside the smokescreen of half-truths and selective "good news" to which defence ministers so regularly resort.

Over the past eight years, the Government has squandered taxpayers' money, diverting £1.7 billion of the MoD's finances into uncontrolled equipment projects - enough to cover the annual cost of 40 regiments. That, along with the Chancellor's refusal to fund the Armed Forces adequately for the tasks the Prime Minister gives them, is why there have been so many recent cuts, and such dangerous ones.

Lord Bach repeats that the Government intends to build the two new aircraft carriers. We welcome this intention - but are concerned that it remains no more than an intention. The Landing Ship Dock contract may well work, but only at a 32 per cent cost over-run.

The Conservative Party is more than happy to make the management of defence procurement an election issue - as well as the inadequacy and misdirection of defence spending generally.

Lord Astor of Hever, Shadow Defence Minister, House of Lords, London SW1

[sprucemoose]

Er, sorry, are we experiencing another BEagle personality disorder here? I thought you were an avid fan of the A330-200 tanker these days? Or is it just that you think we should be buying them rather than doing a PFI? And I'm not sure that I agree with your assertion that the A310 is going to be a "21st Century" tanker either!
Roland - Italy might get their KC-767s into service a few years ahead of our A330s, but that isn't to say that Boeing are going to be able to shift any more of them; Italy may well be able to marvel in being the only operator of the type apart from Japan!

[BEagle]

Yes, sprucemoose, I think that the A330-200 will certainly make an excellent tanker. But the RAF should be buying them, not renting them.

A310MRTT will indeed be an excellent, efficient and economical 21st Century tanker-transport even in its current form. It would be still better with the FedEx cockpit, a revised FMS, a more integrated MCS, together with Link 16 or better...

Agree with you about the KC-767 though!

[sprucemoose]

BEagle - I agree that it would be great if we could buy the tankers outright; but I can't begin to imagine how long it would take for a proper procurement to get to Main Gate!
With a bit of luck it'll only be late '05 or next year before the deal gets finalised and then we can look forward to getting someone else's shiny, mostly new A330s into Brize before the end of the decade.

[BEagle]

And mightily fine the A330 MRTT will be too!

I have a hunch that the AirTanker's plain vanilla A330 will start at the Covert Oxonian Aerodrome rather sooner than the 'end of the decade' though!

[FOMere2eternity]

In principle it is an excellent idea - practice may prove otherwise.

In the MT world we pay Lex a chunk of money to maintain our white fleet vehicles, yet few of them would ever be rented to the fare-paying public in the condition and with the minor snags we operate them with. Moreover, Lex's 24hr breakdown number(another chunk of money) actually operates Mon-Fri 8-5ish, whereupon they're shut and the RAC cover, unable to do more than fault-find. That means you still have to wait until Lex come in the following day to invoke their replacement vehicle procedure. Imagine that with Airbuses?

Whoever writes our contracts has form for doing a bad job and, historically speaking, civvy companies can make fortunes exploiting our errors, oversights and omissions. That means anything more than the contractual requirement of X flying hours/tasks costs the earth and while passenger volumes may be seasonally predictable, wars sometimes aren't (unless you've arranged one in advance, of course). Secondly, can you really forsee a time when a budget manager will be over-ruled by someone at the sharp end when it's a toss-up between fare-paying holiday makers or an extra tanker for JMC? I expect in today's climate you'll be told to make do with two real tankers and a sim - the others are for war use only and make civvy airlines more money (and cost the RAF less) flying lager louts to Ibiza.

If Lex start buying A330s, get worried...