View Full Version : MOD Annual Report and Accounts
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/57/57.pdf
A bit of a long read........
tucumseh
21st Dec 2006, 17:20
Very bland. Two things of note (to me).
Value of Chinook Mk3s written down by over £200M, but cost of Fix to Field not mentioned.
Total validated (verified?) savings of £280M. It is not clear if this is per week or per month. ;) If it is per year, and given that one alone was over £100M, I'd say they're not paying attention.
vecvechookattack
21st Dec 2006, 23:40
Some very interesting figures in this report. It would appear that the Armed Forces are fully manned (give or take 0.8%) and that only 4% of the RAF spent more than 140 days detached last year. I wonder why the 3 services account for their harmony figures differently? The RN count it over a 3 year period, the Army over a 30 month period and the RAF every 12 months. Whilts were discussing harmony guidleines I enjoyed the comment stating "we are concerned that the Royal Navy Information system which records separated service is inadequate..." Your telling me mate....I think they mean that scrap of paper we have to fill in each month.
The section regarding diversity and recruitment is particularly shocking.
99% of servicewomen had been in a situation where sexualised behaviour had existed. The report didnt mention how many servicemen had been in a situation where sexualised behaviour had existed.
L J R
22nd Dec 2006, 07:51
The term SERVICEWOMAN is a sexualised term, therefore any woman who has read the report, or filled in the quiz must have been exposed to sexualised behaviour. ie often the term and definition is confusing (not defending the practice, just stating that stats can be interpreted differently).
Also 'too difficult' to find and peruse the HS125 auth sheets and pax manifests to verify that they are being used for 'high value pax' and not 'high ranking pax'
Biggus
22nd Dec 2006, 16:36
Only 4 % of RAF spent more than 140 days detached last year........ hmmmm!
Well I did for one - but the point I would make is how were the RAF gathering these statistics, and can they be believed?
Nobody on my Sqn seemed either to know, or be bothered, that I was breaching so called 'harmony guidelines', as indeed most of us were. Was it the now defunct SAMA that was collating stats in the background with nobody knowing? Are the stats based on the deployment of trackable whole units, e.g RAF Regiment Sqns, etc, as opposed to individuals. Are the stats based on LSSA (LSA?) claims - in which case what about the occasions when you are away for less than 10 days which don't get counted? Given the debacle that is JPA, who will be able to determine anything accurately for the next year?
All in all, based on personal experience, I think the 4% figure is somewhat suspect!
Only 4 % of RAF spent more than 140 days detached last year........ hmmmm!
Well I did for one - but the point I would make is how were the RAF gathering these statistics, and can they be believed?
A very good question! Especially if you remember this (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2959423&postcount=29) from another thread. Given this limitation, it will be interesting to read next year's report - if they can write it!!
Impiger
22nd Dec 2006, 18:42
Biggus
Stats are always dubious! Churchill said: 'never trust statistics you haven't cooked yourself'!
In the days when I gave a rats anus about these things it transpired that only individual absences were being tracked (ie singleton deployments OOA etc) and that absences en mass as part of a squadron detachment were ignored because the tracking sytem hadn't been set up that way. Eventually we got it changed - Lord alone knows what JPA tracks.