Budget

[pubsman]

Everything will be rosy now, Mr Brown has allocated massive new budget to Defence!

See

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4354159.stm

[totalwar]

Fantastic news. Nice to see some well earned money coming our way.

[airborne_artist]

Pubsman

It's been updated now - they've inserted the m after the £400 - as if that amount would make a difference anyway?

[engineer(retard)]

Had to read this twice :\

He announced £65m to be spent in the coming year on employer training pilots

[Jackonicko]

"Duty up 1p on a pint of beer and 4p on a bottle of wine, but frozen on cider, sparkling wine and spirits."

Bizarre, or what? So it's a good budget for alcoholic tramps, champagne and spirits drinkers, and a bad one for beer drinkers and ordinary folk who drink the odd bottle of wine.

Did he really not increase duty further on cancer sticks?

[MadsDad]

But, Jacko, the cider duty freeze has to be good, doaan't it?

(See location below. Drunk in charge of combine harvester officer, I doaan't know wha' e' means).

[Ray Dahvectac]

Did he really not increase duty further on cancer sticks?

7p on a packet of 20.

Not enough IMO, but there ya go.

(Ducks back below parapet ;) )

[totalwar]

So what can we spend to £400m on?

How about another 9 Merlin?

[airborne_artist]

So what can we spend to £400m on?

How about an update to the T42/Bag/Lynx so they all know where the others are, and how much fuel it will take to be re-united?

[SmilingKnifed]

'Coming our way' for what TotalWar?

To fill a gaping budget deficit left by buying :mad: kit?

Are you sure you're not BuffHoon?

[strek]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what can we spend to £400m on?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 Merlins??!!

Wish we could buy 9 Merlins for for £400 mil, would be lucky to get 3 for that!

Still wouldn't have any spares though.......

[totalwar]

What a fab idea...throw the lot at the DLO and ask for some Merlin support please...then they can all get back flying again.....

smilingknifed.... ref your coment about :mad: kit.

If the kit you are operating with isn't adequate why not do something about it. Staff a paper, write a requirement, tell people the kit doesn't do what it says on the tin. At the end of the day poor kit is not a problem of the manufacturer. The kit was a requirement of the Forces, it was ordered by the forces and it was accepted into service by the forces. No one to blame but the forces.

[SmilingKnifed]

So no governmental pressure to accept kit (badly) made in the UK?

Bowman, SA-80 (sic), Nimrod AEW. Ringing any bells? Admittedly not all occured under the current government, but nor did the previous government have such a compulsion to be a wrold policemen.

[sonicstomp]

£400m - how about 1 and a half E-3s??!

[Si Clik]

Your dear chaps please read the statement before you spend the money.

'a further £340 million for the special reserve in 2004-05 and £400 million in 2005-06 for military operations in Iraq and the UK’s other international obligations.'

So there is no more money for kit.

:hmm:

[Fg Off Bloggs]

totalwar/hyd3Failure/CNS/Buffoon or whoever you are masquerading as today, I have to tell you that once again you are talking sh1te.

God preserve us from this ferkin' idiot and his Labour pals!

[L1A2 discharged]

TW@

400m is only 10% of the current overspend, due to buff not being ab;le to get the dosh promised by GB for the war(s).

[Cambridge Crash]

I have to agree with Totalwar concerning the procurement of equipment. As long as the Ministry of Defence - and DPA in particular - continue to employ school leavers on pifling civil service salaries to manage the procurement of kit competing with the military-industrial complex of the likes of BAe, with 'specialist service input' rotating, on average, every 18 months, the situation is unlikely to change.

And the situation hasn't changed. Read any account of the Great War and the Great Patriotic War and one will note the consistent issue of inadequacy of kit - field uniforms and weapons in particular.

And a mere accounting adjustment providing an 'extra' GBP 400M will not cover the lack of legitimacy of invading a Sovereign State (Iraq).

CC

[sweep complete]

Saints save us... the post is about the bl**dy budget and yet the Merlin bashers have jumped on it again.

GIVE IT UP GUYS!!! (I'm guessing from the locations that envy and paranoia are still rife in a certain air station in Somerset)

you:mad: s.

[HOODED]

Sorry boys and girls, the extra money is to pay FRI to the RN pilots and to pay redundancy to all those aircraft engineers we don't need as we are stopping routine maintenance on our aircraft, in favour of just fixing them with tape when they fall apart. Time to go me thinks!:yuk:

[Bag Man]

I hate to be a boring old tw@ (again) but the sooner u guys accept the fact that the 'defence industry' is there to provide jobs (and not kit) the easier u will sleep at night.

I say let's use the £400m to pay for some hare-brain study into why we need lots more studys into what is wrong with the way HMForces go about their business - like LEAN !!! After all, we could employ lots more civil servants that way.

PS If the front-line users (not maintainers) had any say in procurement then HMForces would collapse - because we would never accept anything.

[totalwar]

I say let's use the £400m to pay for some hare-brain study into why we need lots more studys into what is wrong with the way HMForces go about their business - like LEAN !!! You clearly dont understand nor do you even know what LEAN is about. I suggest you conduct your own LEAN roadmap and then you will be in a position to criticise it or not. I think you will find that LEAN helps you become more efficient, less wasteful and all in all a better worker.

[engineer(retard)]

Bag Man

I think that industry is there to fund shareholder dividends, defence jobs are expendable.

TW

You appear to be talking theory, go read the Lyneham thread for practical application. If you pare down your resource to meet a standard task, you generally get shagged if you have to provide a surge capability for any length of time. Although I have to lean in your favour (god help me) re the procurement. Requirement writing is not an area that the MOD excels in, a coach and horses could be ridden through most URDs.

[Widger]

Great....A pinger/bag bunfight!

[Bag Man]

Who out there actually believes that the prime contractors don't write the specs on behalf of the MoD?

We have to have a contract to write the contract you know - and put that contract out to tender.

[engineer(retard)]

Bag Man

if you were right I would be out of a job.

[strek]

Engineer

Bag Man is right.

And bearing in mind his handle, I think you will find that he knows better than most about the Prime/MoD relationship....

If this did not happen, it would take to long to agree - Industry hold the experts and the knowledge of what can be done. The DLO and DPA are heavily reliant on this, since the user/operator can rarely decide (or understand) what they want....

Strek

[engineer(retard)]

Shrek

Best I go and sign on then, they might ask for their money back.

Mind you having re-read the strand, I suppose technically I count as industry but I'm not a prime contractor. Other procurements that I've been involved in have had industry teams writing the spec but not taking part in the competition

It also depends on what you are procuring, I recall that anything over £100k had to be put out to competition unless there was an overwhelming reason not to. This makes sense if you are buying a platform. However, if you are procuring a box then if one of the competitors writes the spec and then wins the competition, you will be in for some serious parliamentary questions. If you do not compete the treasury and the NAO rodger you.

The best aircraft procurement model I have seen is when the DA writes the spec, the MOD competes it, with joint teams carrying out the assessment.

PS I have worked for both DLO and DPA in and out of uniform

[Bag Man]

e(r)

Still trying to get my head around the concept of paying shareholder dividends without a workforce doing some work!

NAO just had a go at MoD for creating capability gaps (e.g. getting rid of Jag). How do you think the gov will respond? By recinding their decision or by writing another verbose document that costs the taxpayer £ks?

[rafloo]

Bagman, yr talking george.

[mbga9pgf]

Has anyone else noticed the strategic shift from "Defence cutbacks to obtain kit with much larger force multiplier, although same projected force", to the new "We are cutting capability as we are now going through a period of capability drawdown" when politicians are interviewed?

Very worrying.
By the way, Quick question about NEC. Are we leaning towards american networked asset protocols or a more european-compatible protocol?

[engineer(retard)]

Bag man

BAeS and WHL drop the workforce fairly tout suite as soon as the orders slow down but they are not short of contracts. If it comes to a decision between profit margins and maintaining the work force the shareholders win every time. If the work can be outsourced cheaper then it generally is if they can get away with it.

regards

retard

[Bag Man]

rafloo

Thanks for that well thought out, logical, well presented argument to counter my 'george'. I'm sure you have everybody sitting on the edge of their seats.

e(r)

Outsourcing still provides jobs somewhere - I just hope its in the UK and not in France or Italy.

Ou e le papier?

[Widger]

Why not France?

They have just launched their equivalent of the T45, ours are still being moved around the country in bits.

They have Rafale and it has been flying for years unlike Typhoon.

They have Nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers (where are ours? and they built the Queen Mary, no shipyard big enough in the UK.

If we left it to them and kept some of our British companies out of it, we probably wouldn't be in such a state with our procurement!

[vecvechookattack]

and they are also producing HM ships QE and POW

[c-bert]

Yes, but....

Rafale is far less capable than Typhoon and they have had no end of problems with Charles de Gaulle to the extent that the general opinion of the frog in the street is that the vessel is cursed!
The QM2 has been having lots of problems with her podded drives (although I can't really blame that on the French...

;) )

[vecvechookattack]

They have Nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers (where are ours? We couldn't have Nuclear powered Aircraft carriers. Just impractible. Never happen.

[c-bert]

No nukes - government policy. Odd we are allowed nuke subs but no nuke surface vessels...

[Slow Hands]

That's hopefully because no one in their right mind would let a standard fishead anywhere near a nuclear powered vessel! see Nottingham, Grafton et al :ok:

[totalwar]

Yeah, imagine letting our Navigators loose on one of those bad boys. As well as the fact that we couldn't afford one, don't have a dockyard clever enough to make one, don't have a dockyard big enough to put one in, and coupled with the fact that there is an international incident everytime an SSN goes alongside in Gib, the chances of the tree huggers ever allowing us to operate a CVSN are remote.

[Widger]

Didn't think it would be too long before someone supported the Typhoon. Yes it WILL be more capable, but the point is, the French have had Rafale operating off their carriers for years and whilst it might not be the match for Typhoon, it is still one of the best and operated by pilots who are agressive and very familiar with their platform.

Even though we all hate the french, :p :p :p :p it is probably from a grudging admiration of the way they get things done. Almost self sufficient in Nuclear energy, which they sell to us during peak demand, better shipyards, eat all the fabulous seafood that comes from our shores, protect their farmers, have cheaper diesel and export all their asylum seekers to us.

I must stop reading the Daily Mail, I am starting to sound like my Mother in Law.

[c-bert]

I'm not supporting Typhoon - I think it has been a massive waste of time and money. All I'm saying is that if we had plumbed for a cheaper/simpler aircraft and had an understanding public with a larger defence budget, we too could still be operating carriers like Eagle with aircraft like Rafale.

The trouble is, like you say, the French don't give a stuff about things like the environment and their neighbours - they look after number one. If I was a Frenchman I'd be happy as La Rry, as it is I say a decent Frog whopping is long over due....;)

[engineer(retard)]

Speaking to a french pilot a couple of years ago, he regretted that they built Rafale, not enough capability for the money, and believed that the french would not build another fighter on their own.

Re getting things done in France, their bureaucrats could teach ours a thing or two about delay and procrastination. If you want to buy outside of France, forget it you have no chance.

Part of our problem is that we think everybodies grass is greener.