Where is all this going?

[MaroonMan4]

I can see the nibbles on Prune threads about emerging threats, implications to reduction in size and some specific capabilities of UK Defence, and of course changes to pay and conditions of service, but is it only me that is noticing similarities with history where Defence spending and resourcing was reduced.

There also appears to be a confusing and contradictory political strategic message being broadcast; US President Obama declaring optimism on emerging from 10 years of war (as in war is over), to our Prime Minister declaring a generational struggle against militant islamists (the war will continue).

I see a Prime Minister want to change the relationship with Europe, and yet I see the proposed use of French Carriers and Strat AT (to mention but a few) beginning to blur/slide the UK's military into a quasi EU Force (with all that entails)

This ambiguity and uncertainty is also seen in the senior leadership, with a ACGS saying on BBC when questioned about the recent Army redundancies that British Forces would be able to deliver 'capacity building' in the future .....what on earth is that and what does it mean?

So here we are pulling out of Afghan, attemting to save money by decreasing the MoD budget in anyway possible (notably equipment and reducing pay and conditions for our people/service families), and yet the world is probably looking as globally unstable as at any time in my 4 decade career.

If we are that broke, and Treasury and the British people would prefer to have the 'generational struggle' within the UK mainland rather than at source in the countries of origin, then I am all for reducing the the military into Italian style UK Carabinieri with niche capabilities for 'capacity building' (which I think means engineers, logistics specialists, medical etc)......but somehow I dont believe that is what lies install, and sadly when everyone is looking at banking Defence savings due to ending 10 years in Iraq and Afghan, the time frame of 2015-2020 could bite us badly (especially with an election in 2015 - and we dont need to watch Yes Prime Minister to know what that means!).

Is the silence on PPrune because we are all tired with the constant change and the plundering of Defence resources? Are we all sitting on our elbows waiting to see the true extant and personal effect of the new pension schemes and employments models, planning exit strategies accordingly? Or have we just given up after 10 years + of high tempo operations and just dont care anymore with loyalty to Queen and Country a distant thing of the past now as the 'loyalty' door with the MoD is now seen as one way? Or are we acknowledging that Defence was a poorly managed fat cat, needed this level of budget control and pruning and that actually we will be just fine for the conflicts of tomorrow?

Or is it just me and at the back end of my career I am just becoming too old and not embracing this new military environment very well (so very different from the one I joined, with the most marked change from the early 00s).

[Wrathmonk]

I suspect the silence may be caused by the fact that the majority of the posters on this forum are

1. Retired.

2. Non UK.

3. Never served / wannabees.

4. WUMs (wind up merchants).

5. 'Fantasists' (who believe there is a bottomless pit of cash with which to buy all the good toys).

The above, ,of course, all have the right to air their opinions but generally only appear on threads where no (recent) military experience/knowledge is required so would soon be found out if they were to join in on the points you raise.

And I'm days to being a '1' so no comment from me!;)

[Andu]

In his inauguration speech, Barak Obama did everything but take a slip of paper out of his coat pocket, wave it above his head and intone "Peace in our time".

I'm afraid I think we're about to witness results almost as cataclysmic and far-reaching as those that followed the time when those words were in fact uttered by a major Western leader - and I'm by no means even remotely confident that, in the long run, those who we like to think of as the good guys will eventually prevail this time.

History has a nasty habit of repeating itself, and far too many of our current political leadership seem to have almost no appreciation of history at all and so don't even know what has happened before. I'm particularly concerned about one aspect of history that first appeared in the Spanish Civil War - the crippling, battle-losing effect of a 'fifth column'. This last point applies, I think, particularly in Britain.

[Finningley Boy]

I think Barak Obama's speech could possibly be read as a message to Cameron, Hollande and the like that they needn't wave for his attention when they need U.S. Military equipment to engage islamist rebels in places like Mali.

That said, I do think that under the Global circumstances, it was tempting fate just a tad to smile like a "MAD" cartoon character and announce without the slightest hint of caution, such a bold prediction for the future.:uhoh:

FB:)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Wrathmonk is right, and those of us who fit in Cat 1. Retired are probably keeping mostly quiet because we've been asked to by recent Serving posters, and we can take a hint. On this topic however, we may have something to offer.

In my case, I am both 1. Retired and 2. non-UK because I saw this coming a long time ago. If I had an answer, I'd have stayed to try and help fix it.

To comment on MM4's points; Defence has been mismanaged desperately by the politicians, who are clueless as to how to fix DES/DPA/MoD(PE) and too concerned with protecting industry. A still-Serving friend of mine reckoned we'd have to lose two wars before it changed. Sadly, the politicians are believing their own BS that we didn't lose Iraq and the 'Stan. Two more losses to come then. And now there's really no cash, so it will continue getting worse. Frankly, the Armed Forces are now so small there will be no change until the UK itself is under threat again.We have no overseas 'interests' that we can do anything about unilaterally, so the Government will wring its hands and pretend we didn't care anyway, unless they can get multinational support. Furthermore, Joe Voter clearly doesn't care whether we can contribute to another Libya-style action or not.

If it's any consolation, I spent a second career in Education, and they've f#cked that up at the Government/DfE level too.

[Finningley Boy]

I've just been listening to PM's Questions, somebody on the Labour side had a go about 5,000 + Soldiers to be sacked/made redundant, Cameron's stock reply; We have the fourth largest Defence Budget in the World.

The man's a deceitful idiot, but then for how many people watching is this reassurance enough? Just how many British people question how come we have such a small and ever shrinking deployable operational Navy, Army and Air Force?

FB:)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

May I remind readers that Gordon (spit) Brown's standard answer to criticism was to state how much was being spent, rather than the effect that spending was having.

p.s. to the current generation of politicians, "effective" is spelt "elected". If it doesn't help get them elected, then it's not "effective" and will be sacrificed for something that does.

[dctyke]

FB: Just how many British people question how come we have such a small and ever shrinking deployable operational Navy, Army and Air Force?

Outside the armed forces sphere I reckon around 2% tops. Most british people are having a hard time keeping their heads above water to worry about anything else!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I also fall into Wrathmonk's Cat 1. My chief reason for not responding anymore is the memory of a former boss's advice on promotion; "learn when to stop p**sing against the wind". No longer concerned with promotion but a long life without raised blood pressure would be nice.

That's a good point about confusing cash spent with effect bought. We try to field the best technically available Force without the benefit of economy of scale. The smaller we get, the more expensive it is likely to become. Expense is the principle embuggerance and puts it all firmly in the hands of traditionally Defence/War averse Treasury. The current financial crisis, that they must have had a grandstand seat for the run up, must be heaven sent for them. It now seems that they are no longer pulling the strings from the background:
BBC News - Minister Danny Alexander dismisses Trident replacement (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21155000)

It's the futility and the general Government selective deafness and myopia that supresses many of us responding to real events anymore.

[Evalu8ter]

Moreover, Brown was only really bothered where the money was being spent; the endless funnelling of taxpayers money into select constituencies....

We may have the world's 4th largest defence budget but when it is used as a 'benefits systems' for British industry and a posing pouch for senior officers anxious to swagger next to their US counterparts it's no surprise it gets frittered away.

[glad rag]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^same here. ^^^^^^^^

Basically too busy keeping family housed and fed in these unnecessarily difficult times.

Consider the UK political system, politicians and their mandarins "être au-dessous de tout"

gr.

[BossEyed]

In his inauguration speech, Barak Obama did everything but take a slip of paper out of his coat pocket, wave it above his head and intone "Peace in our time".

He may not have waved the paper, but he did intone the words.

And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice – not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

I wasn't sure I'd heard correctly!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The tragedy is that if the Defence industry had been given a kick up the arse a long time ago, it could have become more efficient. I can only speak about WasteOfSpace as my Uncle was high enough to know what was going on. He is also 1. Retired, 2. Non-UK and, bottom line, no longer tearing his hair out.

Maybe it still can become more efficient, but not the way things are, and are going.

[pr00ne]

There is so much nonsense spouted here it is almost beyond belief. If we have such a "defence/war adverse Treasury" then how come we spend more on Defence than all other countries on the face of the planet bar three?

We are in the middle of recovering from the largest financial melt down since the 1920's with absolutely no military threat facing us, we still maintain the worlds 4th largest defence budget and posses military capabilities far beyond all but a few nations.

Calm down dears...

[tucumseh]

Defence has been mismanaged desperately by the politicians, who are clueless as to how to fix DES/DPA/MoD(PE)

The root cause of most problems discussed here is senior RAF officers, not politicians or DE&S. As demonstrated on the successful "campaigns" conducted by a few retired officers and, mainly, civilians.


Instead of simply saying "fix DE&S", why not offer an opinion on what is wrong with DE&S (and by excluding DEC and HQ staffs you'll never identify the problem, never mind a fix), a proposed solution for ppruners to debate, why you think the opinions of others are wrong if they differ from yours, and tell us what your MP said when you put all this to him.

By mentioning DE&S, may I assume your major concern is waste of money? (Nimrod, Chinook Mk3 etc). If so, I agree.

The mandated means of avoiding waste (as far as possible) is to conduct Requirement Scrutiny. This is a legal obligation (to PUS), and to make a false declaration while exercising this obligation is to commit fraud.

In the past two months, the Head of the Civil Service (Sir Robert Kerslake) and Min(AF) (Mr Andrew Robothan MP) have both confirmed, in writing;

1. It is an offence to refuse to obey an order to make such a false declaration, and,

2. It is not an offence to issue this order to commit fraud.


Their replies contained precisely the same wording. That is, they were briefed by the very people who have, for many years, issued said orders and/or condoned them. The last time PUS was advised of this illegal activity, in an internal MoD report, he took no action. Nor did the PAC, HCDC or CSC. That report included a case study where one programme manager (myself) was instructed to knowingly waste over £100M per year, year on year, by an RAF Air Vice Marshall; by implementing a policy developed under an Air Chief Marshall (who, say it quietly, posts here). That's a lot of money when taken across a 6,000 or so procurement organisation subject to the same rulings. This policy was later fully endorsed and executed by the Chief of Defence Procurement (a retired Admiral).

I used to say that solving this problem would go a long way to solving MoD's financial "black hole". I haven't changed my mind. It is why I sympathise, to a degree, with HM Treasury. They see MoD as a bottomless pit of waste. The political failure is to have an independent review, instead of allowing the staffs responsible to judge their own case. At a certain level, the ongoing redundancies (both Servicemen and Civilian) is more case of the Treasury giving up on MoD policing itself, and taking this action as a last resort. It is way too late for Service Chiefs to say "If we stop wasting money can we reduce the redundancies and cut backs"? You may have noticed, serving VSOs tend to protect their predecessors/mentors.

What I'd propose today is for Government to freeze the cuts for a year, find a copy of the above report (by MoD's own admission they destroyed it, but I sent my own copy to the PAC last year - no reply) and set up an independent implementation team of the 19 recommendations (all of which fall into the "mandated policy" category so no new policy need be developed).

Keep a record of results (savings/efficiencies that do not affect capability) and reassess the need for cuts. This is precisely what we did in during the 6 years preceding the reports issue. The savings were truly astronomical. OC was enhanced. The disciplinary action from the RAF Chief Engineer and CDP swift and draconian. This time he and his like must be kept out of the loop. Discuss if you wish.

[susanlikescats]

As a relatively disinterested foreigner, I view the UK's decline - militarily and otherwise - with some amusement. Put simply, it shouldn't have happened. You had both the intellect and the resources to do so much better for so much longer.

You'll hate this, but it's those of you who are retiring now or retired in the past 15 or so years who must carry the can for breeding a generation of self-centred fools.

Ironic, isn't it? So much potential, so little achievement...

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Very useful Tecumseh. I realise these things are very complex, and there is often a chicken-and-egg situation.
If PUS, PAC, HCDC, etc. take no action when advised of "illegal" activity, then they de facto condone it. The VSOs would not be doing the job their political masters want if they did not then continue said activity (I am walking on eggs here). Indeed, they may have commenced said activity precisely because their masters wanted it.
Alternatively, the VSOs may be acting for all the wrong reasons, and the politicians/civil service have no effective means of arguing with the 'experts'. And they've tried recruiting retired VSOs to play 'gamekeeper', but those retired VSOs are still 'poaching'.
My feeling is that the buck stops where the power is, and that's why I blame the politicians/senior civil servants.

Can I clarify your opinion? Are you saying the VSOs could fix it by doing proper Requirement Scrutiny?
I think it could be fixed by Ministers / DE&S exercising their legal duties, theoretically, except I do not think either are capable of this. As you say, they are being informed of what is going on, but are not taking action.

I did not write to my MP about Defence when I PVR'ed. I did write several times to my MP about the mess education was becoming, as he was a former teacher in my subject so I thought he would understand. To my final letter before emigrating, where I summarised what I though were the problems, and the potential solutions which I thought the current system was (sadly) incapable of implementing, his reply was "I agree. (it's) Madness. Good luck in Canada". This appears to be an admission of an insoluble problem.

[CoffmanStarter]

Here's a sobering thought chaps ... Yes I know it's one of those meaningless comparison statistics beloved of the tabloids ... BUT !

Apparently McDonalds now employ more people than there are in the British Army ...

I'm loving it ...

[pr00ne]

tucumesh,

In the past two months, the Head of the Civil Service (Sir Robert Kerslake) and Min(AF) (Mr Andrew Robothan MP) have both confirmed, in writing;

1. It is an offence to refuse to obey an order to make such a false declaration, and,

2. It is not an offence to issue this order to commit fraud.

Have you tried bringing the above to the attention of a decent investigative journalist?

I think a fair few would be very interested if there was something in terms of actual evidence.

[tucumseh]

Can I clarify your opinion? Are you saying the VSOs could fix it by doing proper Requirement Scrutiny? When conducting RS the final declaration and signature is more often than not made by someone really quite junior (the project or programme manager with the technical and financial approval delegation). Even if you have one of the lesser delegations, you’ll still have sufficient power to sign for, say, £20M, which is enough for the vast majority of milestone payments. Bear in mind a financier does not approve expenditure, only endorses it. That is, the person with technical and financial delegation makes the written declaration that the proposed spend is “fair and reasonable” against a rigorous test (the main Requirement Scrutiny); the financier then “merely” writes down where and when the money is in the budget).


The basic problem arises when someone above you has, for example, already given the nod to the “requirement” or is applying pressure for delivery to be accepted. Pressure is applied to sign, not because they want to waste money, but because they do not want to be seen to be wrong or made to look foolish by a subordinate.



In theory, this should not be a problem if handled tactfully, but in practice it is seldom that simple. These days, very few are taught that when conducting RS you are not working for your line manager or superior, but direct to PUS. This is a difficult concept for superiors to accept, but once they do the sensible ones usually step back.



However, if he does apply pressure, at least the superior is acknowledging the subordinate’s delegated powers, and reasoned debate can take place (if the subordinate doesn’t cave in). Not caving in is part of the test that (should be) applied before granting delegation. (Which is another problem – delegation used to be a big deal; today it’s handed out to totally unsuitable staff).



Of greater concern is when a superior has self-delegated that technical and financial approval and over-rules the lower ranked person who does have the necessary delegation, and signs-off the approval himself. This is more normal among Civil Servants, since the advent of non-technical project/programme managers (who, by definition, cannot possibly have technical and financial delegation). This leads to situations whereby the project team is actually upside-down, as the subordinate has infinitely more authority and responsibility than the superior. This act of self-delegation is of course illegal, but if contained to financial matters “only” results in astronomical waste.



But in my experience, by far the worst examples have involved self-delegation and over-rules on both financial and technical/safety design issues. It is one thing to knowingly waste money, but when accompanied by decisions that render the equipment unsafe is simply criminal. The former is fraud, the latter can lead to manslaughter (and, of course, has done).



All of the examples I quote were subsumed within the rulings I mention.

So, it’s not a case of the VSOs doing proper RS, it’s a case of them allowing and encouraging it by refusing to countenance the type of behaviour I describe. Leading, not managing. As I’ve said before, the root of the recent rulings is 2/3/4 Stars actively preventing RS, by taking disciplinary action against those who try to do it properly.

Have you tried bringing the above to the attention of a decent investigative journalist?
Yes, but not interested, mainly because they don’t understand. I can understand this up to a point, but the real problem is that it has been formally brought to the attention of the MoD Police, PUS, Ministers, Public Accounts Committee, House of Commons Defence Select Committee, Civil Service Commissioners and, recently, Head of the Civil Service; and all have been seen to condone it. I fully accept that “all” these people do is refer the matter to MoD for comment, who simply ensure that the reply comes from a source who has most to lose if the policy is revealed.



In my mind it is the same as the closely related airworthiness failures (demonstrably, it was this waste, by AMSO, that caused them in the first place). For years the same thing happened. Letters to Ministers were referred to precisely the same MoD department, who replied on their behalf with the same words, year after year, denying any problem. But finally, if you persevere, you find a way of getting through. As happened on Mull of Kintyre, for example, you get to actually speak to a Minister who is prepared to listen and ask just one awkward question. (In the case of MoK, on the CHART report). Then the perpetrators’ lies are publicly exposed at the most senior level, they turn on each other and all is revealed. But the catalyst is an independent inquiry. As with airworthiness, the system at present cannot cope with the concept of anyone knowingly wasting money (or making an aircraft unsafe). In MoD there simply is no mechanism to counter an illegal order to waste money, not least because the perpetrator is allowed to judge his own case. This must change and, in fact, it is the only aspect that requires a formal change of rules. The rest is implementation of extant rules. Exactly the same as the airworthiness failures.

[Out Of Trim]

4th Biggest Military Budget with very little to show for it!

= Piss Poor Procurement.

After the disaster of Browm's Labour Government. I and many ex serviicemen were counting on Cameron's Government to see the light and set things right to enable adequate defence of this country.

Sadly and alas, his Defence decisions have been crass and have now left us almost defenceless. I will never vote Conservative again.

It's UKIP all the way now! Leave the EU now and gain an instant £50 million a day saving, which spent well would go a long way to restore are Defences.

[eructations]

I completely agree with all the statements made, I was lucky I only had to threaten one senior with "I have no option if you maintain this path but to write directly to the PUS" I was fortunate on two accounts:

1. He was clueless to the whole process.

2. I had in my file the origional letter of delegation I was given during my introduction to Requirement Scrutiny.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Thanks Tecumseh.
So, it is Ministers/MoD who have the power to change things, and they seem incapable of doing so?
Therefore, what must change for them to start doing so?
That was what stumped me. I do not think the current crop of politicians, or senior civil servants, have the least interest in actual results. Keep your head down and keep your job. And silence anyone who speaks up, as (a) they may well be right, (b) you can never tell whether they are right, or have any answers as to how to improve things.(c) delegating control is the last thing an incapable boss will do.

[Ken Scott]

Leave the EU now and gain an instant £50 million a day saving, which spent well would go a long way to restore are Defences.

Or alternatively, reduce Government borrowing to only £450 million per day.

[smujsmith]

Gentlemen,

Perhaps we should target our focus not on the military aspects of this "melt down" in our economy, but, more on the consequences of continuing to try and be "all things to all men" ? I like many can see how the politicos are ripping the sh1t out of everything apart from their own cosy set up. And, while they keep throwing the chaff of leaving the EU, having to get rid of our Nuclear Deterrent because of our parlous economic state, and maintaining our throwing money at states like India/Pakistan, as "overseas aid". The whole thing to me seems to be a diversion, to take the eye away from what is really going on. We, as a country, can no longer afford to be a player on the world stage.

I personally believe that all of our military have given exceptional value for tax payers money for the past 30/40 years (I don't mean to demean the two world wars but different circumstances applied then). But, if the public are now tired of supporting such a long reach, then the government should respect that and adjust accordingly.

I have a serious loathing for the sanctimonious outpouring of grief affected by the politicos every Wednesday, before PMQs. The guys who died knew what they were taking on, unlike the Westminster village 'idiots', who seem to change their minds as frequently as I change my shreddies (currently three times a week). It's a real shame that Parliament is now so totally out of step with us mere mortals.

Smudge

[Andu]

From post #10 on page 1:

We may have the world's 4th largest defence budget but when it is used as a 'benefits systems' for British industry.Over here in Ozmate, an ex-senior officer friend who is as concerned about the parlous state of the Australian Defence Forces despite huge outlays for high end equipment that all too often doesn't work says that our Department of Defence should be re-named to more accurately reflect its real function: "The Department of Defence Industry."

From comments I've seen here, you seem to have a very similar situation over there. Our politicians are far more concerned that any new high ticket defence buy involves jobs in the right electorates and huge profits to the right multinational defence companies (and of course, as large as possible commissions to those companies' all too often ex-politician and/or ex-senior officer agents or "consultants") rather than deliver a weapons system that (a) works and (b) delivers best bang for buck.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

how come we spend more on Defence than all other countries on the face of the planet bar three?


Well it's all to do with our national wealth; last year our defence spending was about 2.7% of our GDP. Some of that was additonal money allocated to operating in the 'Stan and pre SDSR. Balance that against a NATO "target" of 2% for each Member State. Bear in mind, also, that the UK has additional commitments outside NATO (eg British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies).

I've now annoyed myself for again getting wound up over things I've bugger all influence on.

[Chugalug2]

tucumseh:
In MoD there simply is no mechanism to counter an illegal order to waste money, not least because the perpetrator is allowed to judge his own case. This must change and, in fact, it is the only aspect that requires a formal change of rules. The rest is implementation of extant rules. Exactly the same as the airworthiness failures.
That is the crux of this issue, F3WMB. VSO's issued illegal orders, an offence under military law. Those illegal orders were obeyed, again an offence under military law. Thus the system of UK Military Airworthiness provision was fatally compromised, literally, as people died as a consequence. Huge amounts of public money were wasted, entire fleets scrapped, vital capabilities lost and still military airworthiness provision remains compromised under an "independent" MAA. The VSO's responsible are feted and honoured, their reputations protected by those who have replaced them. That is the UK Military High Command of today, that is the state of our nation.

[Sun Who]

As usual for PPRuNE, some informed commentary on this thread - and some less so.
Can I recommend this by way of reconnaissance: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27372/defenceframework_dec10.pdf

Page 18 and all references to the Investments Approvals Board are particularly relevant to this discussion.

Sun.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Thanks for the clarity Chugalug. Digging deeper; what's wrong with the VSO system that ends up promoting the bad guys?
I worked for a 2* briefly, who basically sat me in his in-tray. I had eyes wide as dinner plates at some of the stuff. All sorts of vital stuff being canned to keep pet projects going. Very interesting "proof-reading" 1* ACRs. But there was nothing I would judge illegal; stupid, but not illegal. This was mid-80's, so what changed?

[tucumseh]

But there was nothing I would judge illegal; stupid, but not illegal.


It is illegal if the "requirement" is approved without passing Requirement Scrutiny. The very first question is "Why is it required". Others relate to things like safety, adequate support and training, so it must be demonstrated sufficient funding exists. Also, priority and ability to use existing kit (to avoid duplication and ensure commonality). The list is extensive. Every experienced project manager knows it by heart. Those questions also give you an idea what experience and knowledge the scrutineer must possess. In broad terms, being a Requirements Manager is a good first step to attaining this. "It's a pet project" is not a valid answer and would (should) be exposed and rejected very quickly.

But I'd say your example is fairly typical. It is not easy standing up to a 2 Star. The only practical way of dealing with an illegal order (especially in aviation where it can often kill) is to disobey it and take your chances with the system, which will be stacked against you.

One of the most common failures is buying LRUs, but no spares, pubs, training, testing, trials or even installation kits to fit the kit to the aircraft. That is the practical effect most here will appreciate. I mention this because that is precisely the background of an example when an MoD 4 Star (CDP) ruled it was an offence not to sign the approval, when ALL of those were missing. In other words, MoD would buy a raft of kit but be unable to put it to its intended use. He was supported by Ministers etc, as described above. (This was not mentioned at a subsequent inquest, despite being briefed to the Coroner).

[Chugalug2]

tucumseh:-
In the past two months, the Head of the Civil Service (Sir Robert Kerslake) and Min(AF) (Mr Andrew Robothan MP) have both confirmed, in writing;
1. It is an offence to refuse to obey an order to make such a false declaration, and,
2. It is not an offence to issue this order to commit fraud.

F3WMB, that order was issued by an RAF 2*, and confirmed by his RAF 4* superior, I believe (tuc will swiftly correct me if I am wrong). The false declaration was that the Regulations had been adhered to, when they had not been. Tuc, to his very great credit, disobeyed that order, ensuring an aircraft's airworthiness, and has been fighting the consequences ever since. That you were not faced with such a dilemma is your good fortune. Many were though, and took the easy way out, with a "what can one person do?" bit of self justifying rhetoric. They were the last links in a system that is supposed to ensure, for instance, that no unairworthy aircraft is offered to the UK military, but even if it were to be, it would not receive a Release to Service. All of that happened though and people died. 62, if you add up all the deaths in Airworthiness Related Fatal Accidents reviewed in this Forum, but probably far more as not only is Airworthiness Provision so compromised, Air Accident Investigation is as well. Haddon-Cave was supposed to have remedied all that. He failed, and the compromised MAA and MAAIB of today resulted.

[salad-dodger]

Oh dear, a good discussion thread has been dragged into being another airworthiness discussion using the same rhetoric that has been repeated on countless other threads. Tuc banging the same old drum and Chug repeating it for everyone. I'm not doubting what you say Tuc, but do you have to repeat it on so many threads? As for Chugalug, having watched your posts develop over the years, it's clear that you have very little experience of much of what you write, it's simply material recycled from PPRuNe, and most of it from Tuc.

S-D

[sisemen]

I'm a Cat 1 and 2 and learnt during my service to keep my mouth shut when I was not up to speed on anything.

Oh, and I also learnt to steer clear of opinionated newarks who rubbish their forebears.

[Chugalug2]

Oh dear, another disparaging post from someone irritated by criticism of the RAF High Command. The ball, man, play the ball! I may be all the things you think of me, and worse. That is not the point. The point of this thread is the shear waste and incompetence that is the MOD.
Tucumseh posts his experience of this and points to RAF VSO's as a major cause of that waste in regard to UK Military Aviation; in money, lives, and materiel. I have posted in support of that, and of him, for he tends to brush lightly over the treatment he received from such worthies, but that is at the very heart of how and why they always prevail.
As to not having experienced such myself, I freely admit that, and count myself lucky. Could it be though that those who have had such experiences do not post here of it for the very reason that they were themselves compromised?
Unairworthy aircraft are bad enough, and have cost much life, treasure, and capability, but I doubt very much if the rot stopped there. The Ministry of Waste is like a Fifth Column, sapping the very vitals from our Defence. It is perhaps the worst thing that Earl Mountbatten ever inflicted on this Nation, and that's saying something!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Relax; when Sir Bernie puts all of this out to Industry, what's legal and illegal will probably become invisible.

[tucumseh]

Chug

The first time I experienced it, the case you quote, it was an RAF 2* (AMSO's Director General Support Management). DGSM's immediate superior was the RAF Chief Engineer, a 3*. I cannot say for certain he condoned my case (shared with a number of others who were at the omnibus disciplinary hearing :mad: in Dec 1992, where incidentally we were denied representation), but DGSM would be highly unlikely to threaten dismissal for refusal to commit fraud if he didn't have top cover. Subsequent actions from that quarter (i.e. directing that aircraft be rendered progressively unsafe, in order to recoup money which his predecessors had wasted) tend toward him approving the action or at least turning a blind eye. Anyway, Director Internal Audit ruled against him in his report to PUS (which is the hard, independent evidence that all this occurred as one only needs to ask what event initiated the audit), but PUS ignored this and I think we survived only because the 2* and 3* retired in the interim. It certainly wasn't because we were seen to be "right", as subsequent and recent rulings demonstrate.


It was a later case that involved the MoD(PE) Nimrod & Chinook 2* (who oversaw the "gold standard" cock-ups), who made precisely the same ruling (it's an offence to refuse to commit fraud, but not an offence to issue that order). The PE 3* sat off to one side so it was the 4* (Chief of Defence Procurement) who upheld that case, subsequently supported by a slack handful of Mins(AF) - Ainsworth, Robothan, Ingram etc. (Their briefings were written by the office of the same 4*, so were hardly independent or objective!)


Both cases involved being instructed to make a false declaration about airworthiness, as well as financial probity. No apologies for introducing airworthiness, as it and waste are inextricably linked. My experience is most in MoD don't care about waste, but occasionally the airworthiness aspect filters through, especially if you lose mates.


The first amounted to ordering over £100M deliberate waste, per year, on my projects alone. The second somewhat less. You can only prevent so much when a 2 Star has his entire staffs running around making sure your instructions not to waste the money are ignored. The presure doubles when your line manager is inundated with demands for disciplinary action, as it diverts attention. Companies were also threatened. The classic example is that of GEC Marconi politely declining to quote for Active Dipping Sonar equipment for Hercules, which emphasises the point about Requirement Scrutiny. Question 1. Why is it needed? ADS for C130? Who passed that one? A rhetorical question, it was a Gp Capt supplier. Gp Capt supplier? Now there's waste. Of the £100M per year, I reckon I managed to salvage about 25%. But those 75% year on year cuts, across our entire domain (i.e. maintaining airworthiness) led directly to the deaths you mention.


Depending which side of the fence you sit on you could argue I'm in part responsible because I didn't prevent all that waste. It goes back to a previous point - How much can one person be expected to do, and how do you stand against a 2*. I'm partly ashamed and partly proud that I pinned a 2* (DPA XD5) to a cabinet at AbbeyWood in 2002 when he laughed in my face when told aircraft were at risk of friendly fire, because of the conscious decision not to integrate IFF failure warnings. He did nothing, leading directly to two deaths. The point was that the "requirement" failed scrutiny, as testing, trials, spares, pubs (all the things I mentioned last time) were ignored, yet the contract falsely signed off to the effect the work had all been done and the aircraft met its spec. Those further down the line (toward the front line) have no control or knowledge of all this, they must rely on the integrity and honesty of those before them. By definition, a false and fraudulent declaration was made when signing off this contract as complete. It is entirely typical of what I'm talking about, and I could cite scores of similar examples. Of course, the all time false declaration was on the Chinook HC Mk2 RTS, which failed scrutiny to an unheard of degree. A 2*, funnily enough. Same RAF CE. It isn't a big world and they are readily identified.

[salad-dodger]

Chug, believe me fella, I have no problem with you criticising RAF or any other high command. Fell free also to openly criticise the MoD, civil service and all major or minor defence suppliers and contractors. All equally good targets. But let's have some new material instead of the same old stuff repeated time and time again that you trot out on numerous threads.

Difficult to say that any other way really.

S-D

[tucumseh]

GBZ

I share your slight cynicism. Too often we see these guys parachuted in on fixed term contracts, with bonuses attached, and despite knowing the answer they sit on it and issue a report at the end of their contract. I suppose the difference with Bernard is he wrote his report under Labour, and the Coalition have told him to put his money where his mouth is.

But the fact remains, when he was interviewed on Radio 4 13 months ago, he mentioned an "idea" that is actually long mandated policy. When this was pointed out to Min(AF) by an MP, MoD denied Bernard had uttered the words. Said MP simply forwarded a recording of the programme. MoD still denied it. A picture emerges. No original thought, and a state of complete denial. £300k, or whatever, a year when you could get a 6 year old to read extant policy and dictate a letter saying "Do This". :ugh:



Sun Who

My experience is most in MoD don't care about waste, but occasionally the airworthiness aspect filters through, especially if you lose mates.VERY occasionally it seems! The point has already been made that incalculable, deliberate waste and airworthiness failings are directly linked, and the evidence provided proving it. And that the same individuals were directly responsible for both. It's the elephant in the MoD's room, and for as long as MoD ignore or deny it, it is (in my opinion) a perfectly valid point to emphasise as often as need be. Especially as the message doesn't seem to get through.

That's why we've lost so many colleagues. VSOs saying "Ok, you told me the aircraft are unsafe, you've had your say, now forget it and don't mention it again". Too many then walk away thinking they've done their duty.

[Chugalug2]

Ah, got it now Salad Dodger, I can openly criticise the RAF High Command in a thread concerning the problems of UK Defence, but I must only submit "new" evidence of their malevolent acts. Now where have I heard those words before...?

[salad-dodger]

feel free to twist it any way you want Chug.

One possible note of caution for you though. Malevolent is a very emotive term, particularly as your only evidence would appear to be the words of one other on an internet forum.

S-D

[Heathrow Harry]

to say teh UK faces more danger now "than at any time inteh last 40 years" is absolute nonsense and just plays into teh hands of those who wantto cut teh defence budget

A few guys running about Central Mali, a one off raid on a desert oil station in the Algerian desert and some piracy off Somalia cannot be compared to the Cold War

Even if China- Japan kicks off its a longggg way from Dover and

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Forgive me if I was unclear. The 2* I worked for was one of the good guys. He wanted me to know what went on. At the time, I concluded that there was only one RAF VSO who was, shall we say, really going to the dark side. It was mostly the higher civil servants in MoD making crass priority decisions and forbidding anyone from discussing same. I was given quite a selection of stuff to "proof-read", and in a few cases asked to do draft responses. It was very educational in learning how the game was played at that level.

[Chugalug2]

Caution duly noted S-D. BTW, as one who is so concerned that the thread is not allowed to drift off the course you have decided upon, have you nothing to contribute to it other than to deride my apparently feeble posts?

F3WMB, you asked earlier when it all changed. I can only offer this in reply; 1987. Perhaps this will explain:-
https://www.sites.google.com/site/militaryairworthiness/

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

tucumseh. If yer man Gray was just another political appointee tasked with writing yet another report, I wouldn't be too fussed. This bugger is the CDM, though. I would suggest that he's not somuch been told to put his money where his mouth is but put our money (£220 pa plus actual expenses) where his mouth is. As CDM, with a slot in the Defence Council and a direct line to the PUS, he can dismantle and contract out almost anything he wishes. If it all goes to rats, the worst than can happen to him is dismissal; and how likely is that as an option.

One of the reasons that the MoD (and all other departments of Government) shows up badly against commerce and industry is the web of Treasury, Cabinet Office and Parliamentary rules, regulations and targets that it must comply with. Once any of the DES functions are put out to contract, how many of those restraints will still be restraints? If shedding restraints is an improvement and a saving; great. That begs the question, though, why were they needed in the first place?

[tucumseh]

salad-dodger

one other on an internet forum.


Who would that be? Me? The evidence I present is freely available for all to read. Chug was open minded enough to read it, sit and discuss it with me and be convinced. It is all verifiable and simply a presentation of MoD's own words. That is it's strength. The proof is in the pudding. Chinook. Nimrod. Hercules. Haddon-Cave. Lord Philip.

I'm reminded it is now 10 years since I joined this forum. My very first post concerned the unairworthiness of the Chinook HC Mk2, brought about by deliberate waste. I was pilloried, notably by a 3 Star who was the originator of one of the most the wasteful policies (June 1987). But I'm used to that having worked in MoD under his successors. His words simply emphasised the lies and who MoD was trying to protect, and following the lies revealed the truth. Being a lone voice or part of a small minority doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means you've got to work a little harder to get the truth across, in the face of people who deride you without offering any thoughts of their own. That's the kind of arrogance that led to the problems in the first place.

If MoD, or anyone, thinks I'm wrong in what I say, then I welcome their thoughts. One thing I won't do is dismiss them without the courtesy of a balanced counter argument. Truth is the ultimate defence.

[Courtney Mil]

I don't think he was questioning the validity of anyone's argument here.

[tucumseh]

GBZ

Good points and I agree. I must admit I thought well of Gray when I read his original report, albeit it was a little naive and simplistic in places. I'm also aware some senior people in MoD are making his life very difficult and are hostile to what he's trying to achieve. Mainly because if he succeeds, it exposes them for what they are.

I mentioned above a mandated policy that he presented as his own. (In engineering terms, it amounts to the proper implementation of system integration techniques, more widely applied to programme and business management. All Design Authorities will immediately recognise what he's talking about, and dig out the basic regulations called up in their contracts). It may well be that he didn't know this was policy, but his senior staffs certainly would, as one of MoD's flagship Army programmes invokes it (despite it being based on an Airworthiness Def Stan!) Assuming he knew of this policy, then he's struggling with implementing his cunning plans. The fact MoD lied to Min(AF) about what Gray said tends to support this theory. It's little things like this that reveal the bigger picture. After such a time in post, to fall back on a mandated policy and dress it up as a new idea smacks of desperation. The positive side is that two of MoD's major suppliers are already up to speed with it's use on a major programme, so I suspect they will be leading Gray by the hand a little. The negative side is that one of them is #1 on my personal blacklist and I wouldn't give them a contract to buy a bar of soap.

If we stick to the basic subject here, efficiency and avoidance of waste, it will indeed be interesting to see Industry's response to being invited to take over some DE&S functions. Eventually, I think MoD will benefit from a greater professionalism (not difficult, given MoD ditched that concept in 1996), but in the first place Industry will spend a lot of time pointing out legacy problems that must be fixed, to establish a stable baseline/foundation for the initiative. This will involve MoD being told they have not been following their own mandated rules, which they nevertheless imposed on Industry (causing serious disconnects throughout the acquisition cycle). Those foundations will cost money. I'd like to think it would truly be a spend to save measure but the devil is in the detail and that hasn't been published yet. As this is an aviation forum, I'd personally like to see Westland with a major role. I dealt with them for many years and they never once let me down. Unfortunately, I suspect bigger players will have already got their bung in; sorry, made their pitch.

[Jabba_TG12]

FWIW, I fit into WM's cat1 as well.

IMVHO, a lot of it is down to p*ss poor leadership by the VSO's of all 3 services following the end of the Cold War. Those who were in VSO berths back in those days set the course for where we find ourselves today. F3WMB, Chug and Tuc make excellent points as ever, which make - or should make - very uncomfortable reading.

And to the poster who claims that Chug and Tuc should only post "new evidence".... oh for heavens sake... what they are referring to is when the rot started and has yet to show any signs of even being being made conspicuous to the point where fixing it is seen as a political imperative. What they have detailed, particularly tuc, should be splashed on every front page in the land.

The combination of p*ss poor leadership from the VSO's plus the utterly shameful attitude of New Labour and Brown in particular from 97-2010 is what has led us to this point. As tuc has documented before, there are elements within DE&S and particularly under the IPT model introduced in the 97 SDR that were not up to the job, did not have the savvy to be able to deal with what faced them. Then again, given how much the NHS pays for generic prescription drugs, such ignorance and lack of commercial awareness is not purely confined to MoD, which means that prime contractors like BAe and others get away with murder and are more than content to indulge in the kind of pork barrel politics that Brown signed upto for CVF.

Unfortunately, the public, much as they support those in uniform, are not to put to fine a point on it, either completely disinterested in the details or wilfully ignorant/self centred when it comes to the privacy of the ballot box. As long as we continue to vote in these fools, they will continue to shaft our brothers in arms and will continue to waste the 4th largest defence budget in the world and have next to f**k all but disjointed, Afghan legacy capabilities to show for it.

[salad-dodger]

Courtney, thank you. I was not for one moment questioning Tuc's views.

Jabba, I said nothing about nothing about only presenting new evidence. Please, read what I posted rather than how Chug chose to interpret it.

What I have questioned is the continuous dragging of numerous threads down the same airworthiness route, mainly be the same single poster. He posts nothing knew and it's also fairly clear his experience of the subject is limited to what he has read on this forum.

S-D

[tucumseh]

salad-dodger

Apologies if I misconstrued your post.

tuc

[Chugalug2]

S-D, you may object to me, you may object to what I post, but you do not post anything yourself that contributes to this thread at all. Is that a sign that you have no experience? I see that you started a thread dedicated to the weeding out of the "untermenschen" that you think infect this forum. I can only hope that the mods never consider recruiting you to their ranks, for the subsequent culling would be terrible!
Perhaps if you worried less about what others post and tried posting positive contributions yourself then we might all move into sunny uplands and peace and harmony could prevail? Or not, as you please...

[Courtney Mil]

Again, Chugs, I don't think he was having a go at you at you or the content of your posts (with which I heartily agree). I think it's just a matter of relevance to the thread (which is obviously a matter of opinion). Not one to take personally.

[MaroonMan4]

Wow, some really interesting and detailed analysis here to what was a pretty general opening gambit. But on reading these posts as someone on the shop floor I do get the sense that historically we in Defence have been wasteful and inefficient with our equipment procurement (and therefore have to accept the current fiscal culling); and that the senior leadership is also to blame; and that the politicians and British public do not understand or care too much for Defence spending and HM Forces.

That is the way that I read these posts.

Which means, let's reduce Defence expenditure much further, chuck the funds across to our kids for schooling and parents for their old age, let's not spend on anything which doesn't add value to protecting purely UK waters or sovereign territory. Let's maintain a small niche high readiness capability for NEOs only, and a few ships to protect our trade routes (only when a requirement exists, not as a standing force). Reduce MoD numbers further, rely even more on reserves (for wars of national survival). Have the same relationship with coalition operations as Denmark, Estonia or Australia, small focused and specialist.


Sit back, watch Sky News and see what happens in the world and watch from our armchairs, knowing that the once MoD budget has been switched to our schools, health, transport and environment and all the other things that allegedly the British public really want in preference to Defence.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

chuck the funds across to our kids for schoolingsee my post #4.

I submit that UK education is an even bigger waste at present. I'm currently trying to help set up a Free School to do something about that, but that's about as pleasant as mud-wrestling a rabid pig in a freezing sty. In the dark.

UK education spending has increased by 67% since 1998 (inflation-adjusted). According to the Government, standards have increased by measuring exam grades. According to everyone else, they've dropped and the Government has happily watched the exam standards drop.
E.g PISA (largest international survey)

Science performance

....Year Score Posn
UK 2000 532 4th
....2009 514 16th

[Chugalug2]

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, OP. I'd say that Jabba has summed it all up rather well, but then I would wouldn't I because he wrote nice things about tuc and myself ;-)

[Onceapilot]

Agree with Jabba. FWIW, you can see how out of touch the VSO's had become in the multi world as "micro-management" became the norm after IRAQ 2.
Not sure where the mess they have now created will end.:uhoh:

OAP

[MaroonMan4]

The Times
26 January 2013

Extract of article interviewing William Hague

'The world is becoming a more dangerous place. The risk of conflict has risen'

He does not support the form of "liberal interventionism" adopted by Tony Blair. "I eschew doctrines" he says. "It is about solving problems regionally, but in a holistic way. We are intervening (in Africa) militarily, we are working with their troops on the ground, rather than using our own combat forces.

We need to think more of Somalia than Afghanistan." The Govt has "no plans" to send combat forces to Mali.

The shift in emphasis, he argues, makes the Armed Forces cuts announced this week sustainable. "We still have the fourth biggest military budget in the world. But what we need is more capability in surveillance, special forces and cyber skills."-

[Heathrow Harry]

notice he didn't mention very large aircraft carriers or SSBN's in this dangerous world...

but that's this week I guess

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

"I eschew doctrines" he says (Haig)

That's BR 1806's days numbered then; and AP 3000 for that matter. :}