RAF's now severed head speaks about cuts (to defence)..

[Hangarshuffle]

Sort of. God, I should have been a leader writer for the Dandy or Beano, not slumming it writing garbage in Prune.
Anyway , this is a story in the Grauniad about Sir Michael Gradon, who is no longer head of the RAF but still speaks on defence related issues.
The PM should commit UK to a guaranteed amount on defence spending is the gist.
Interesting comment by one Grad reader says Sir Michael is on the payroll of French Defence Group Thales these days as a non executive director, so he may have a very in(vested) interest in making defence/war starting companies money. (Like my leader, that might be rubbish-who knows?).


PM must guarantee minimum defence spending, says former RAF head | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/25/defence-spending-cameron-nato-minimum-michael-graydon)


Be good if Sir Michel got on here...maybe he does.

[newt]

Unbelievable! Under his watch and other "Yes Men" the forces have been decimated! Short term so called money savings mean the Jaguars and Harriers were scrapped with years of life still left! Furthermore, don't even start me on the F35! It's lots of aeroplanes we need not a small number of high value assets which do not even do what it says on the tin!

A complete rethink about what we need would be a good! You could start with selling Main Building! Who needs offices in Whitehall when we have super fast communications? Then scrap Trident and its replacement! Give the Navy a task force of ships to protect the carrier properly! The list goes on!

Standing by for the flack and off to do some hard digging in the garden!:ok:

[1.3VStall]

And I bet you don't like the name they've given to the F35, Newt!;)

[BBadanov]

1.3V, you are right...


Newt actually flew the WIWOL Lighting II, P-38 was Lightning I.


That makes JSF F-35 the Lightning III, or the Dave I.

[Pontius Navigator]

:under his watch . . .
Really? Check your dates.

IIRC we still had Tornado, Jaguar, Harrier, 9/11 and two wars to come when he retired. There followed 13 years of a Labour Government and 5 of a Tory one.

[newt]

You will note PN that I was not specific on the dates! This has been a trend since way back! Our senior wheels have been more interested in their careers than maintaining a credible force! Far too much time and money has been wasted! The frontline has been decimated! In my day, it was always felt the forces did better under a Labour government than a Tory government!

[Courtney Mil]

...but since your day, Newt (and mine a bit), the Forces seem to have been equally shafted by both. And there may be another shafting coming along very soon.

[Pontius Navigator]

Newt, equipment wise I agree. Remember that Maggie gave us a big pay rise.

[newt]

Ah the military salary! I had forgotten all about that! Thanks PN:ok:

[It's Not Working]

The 'military salary' was around 1969 if I remember correctly; 1/-d for a day's grub. I think PN is referring to 1979 when I got three pay rises in the single year totalling about 30%.

[langleybaston]

Surely the damage is more than 1/10th?

[glad rag]

I clearly remember married Airmen having to claim benefits prior to "the big rise"..

[Pontius Navigator]

Around 1971 the CAS I think was 'horrified' that salaries absorbed more than 50% of the Air Force vote.

For the military salary, what they overlooked was that including accomplice and food into the MS made those elements personable - what a mistaka to maka. Or perhaps they did realise and slipped it passed the Treasury.

[tucumseh]

I'm not sure why the media (especially the BBC) give Graydon the time of day, given his disgusting performances during the Lord Philip Review and his letters to the press railing against the pilots. And, of course, he was proven wrong and completely discredited.

[newt]

Oh do tell us more!:ok:

[Courtney Mil]

I was about to post the same thing, Newt.

[tucumseh]

Newt / CM, I'm not sure if you're requests are aimed at me, but the Mull of Kintyre thread did this to death at the time. If I could just offer a quote from a post-Review analysis;

"First, one must understand the most unsavoury aspect of this case. The 17 year battle put up by senior staffs to scapegoat the pilots systematically sought to conceal the truth. The illegality of some of their actions is discussed elsewhere, but during the Mull of Kintyre Review the two retired senior officers with most to lose, if the truth emerged, were very vocal in the media. ACMs Michael Alcock and Michael Graydon, former Air Member Supply and Organisation (AMSO) / Chief Engineer and Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) respectively.


Graydon had opined to the media the only way the ruling could be reviewed was to reconvene the Board of Inquiry (BoI). That Dr Fox could not simply overturn the gross negligence verdict. The agenda was clear. That a reconvened BoI would still be under RAF jurisdiction, and the Reviewing Officers could still overrule it.



The current CAS, ACM Stephen Dalton, wrote to the press supporting these retired officers. Dalton’s actions were unbecoming his position, as he was pre-judging any inquiry. His judgement was seen to be sadly lacking.



Alcock spoke of other matters. It did not cross his mind that the entire Chinook Airworthiness Review Team (CHART) report of 1992 would ever be released. After all, only 52 pages had been lodged in the House of Commons library, excluding the terms of reference he had placed the team leader under in May 1992. (For example, he was not permitted to speak to MoD’s own airworthiness experts). Unaware the entire 373 page document had been obtained and provided to Lord Philip, Alcock spoke and wrote to the media many times, always repeating the same mantra - CHART did not refer to the Chinook HC Mk2. His ongoing influence over serving officers was demonstrated by MoD and Ministers adopting this line. In fact, the terms of reference he had issued specifically required the team leader to address the impact of the known airworthiness failings on the Mk2, and the report mentioned the Mk2 and its programme almost 400 times."

[Courtney Mil]

Thanks, Tuc. I'm guessing Newt and I were asking the same question.

Good quotes in response. I obviously can't speak for Newt, but just a few lines of simple précis would mean more to me. Your use of quotes assumes we all have the same intimate understanding of these cases as you evidently do.

I only ask because I am interested in what you have to say.

Sorry I'm so badly informed in this issue.

[O-P]

Is this the same Sir Mike that, as CAS, vented his spleen about defence cuts, then apologized the very next day because his political master told him to.


Talk about spineless!

[tucumseh]

It is the same Graydon who was CAS from 1992-97. The first 2 years of his tenure were notable for consecutive 25-28% cuts in support funding. The CHART report, which his office withheld from all MoK inquiries, noted 25% cuts across the board. Maintaining Airworthiness was specifically targeted with 28%. Lord Philip accepted the principle that, as this was known to Bagnall (ACAS) and the CE (Alcock), then it was known to CAS. (If he claims otherwise, then he's accusing his mates of dereliction of duty as they were required to elevate such matters!)

Sorry CM, I didn't want the thread to become "another MoK" but it is difficult because that is what Graydon will be remembered for. I hope. I suspect he gave valuable service for most of his career, and he is certainly involved in worthy causes, but his behaviour toward the end means it counts for nothing.

[newt]

Thanks for all the information guys! As I said at the beginning, we have suffered badly from a bunch of "Yes Men" for far too long! Love know if any of them watch this forum? Bet they are far too busy doing there consultancy work and attending functions in the RAF Club.:ok:

[Whenurhappy]

we have suffered badly from a bunch of "Yes Men" for far too long!

And, pray tell, how would you do it differently as CAS?

[BEagle]

I seem to recall that CAS stood his ground against Mad Old Maggie in 1983/4 and was promptly handbagged for his pains?

The Military Salary scheme was introduced in 1970. As an APO at University, I couldn't believe my luck.

[tucumseh]

Why would Graydon write to Marshall of the RAF Sir John Grandy and state ZD576 was "off course by some miles"? Letter D/CAS/16/1/6 (W0279f) dated 4.2.97 refers.

I think we should be told what the true course/destination was, as he was never asked to explain the claim. Otherwise, it will continue to be seen as an attempt to denigrate the skills of the pilots.

If he was being indiscreet and telling the truth, we'd have to start all over again on MoK!

[MSOCS]

Newt,

Not wishing to assume what you in fact do, or don't, know about VSOs and their private boardroom meetings with Ministers etc, but is it fair to state that they are all "Yes Men"? Publicly it may seem that way, however I know that very few are privy to exactly how vociferous - or not - our Air Marshals/Generals/Admirals are in advocating their particular side of the debate. Being so senior goes hand-in-hand with being politically-minded and therefore knowing which fights are worth fighting and which are not.

Whether ACM Sir Michael Graydon has a chequered past or not should not detract from the value of him speaking out publicly in opposition to [almost] certain Defence cuts and the fact that our Armed Forces have been running on fumes and coalition good will from our US brothers and sisters for many years now.

One hopes that the forthcoming CSR and SDSR won't be such rush jobs this time around. The reality remains that the bottom line will be that of the balance book and not what we might actually need as a country.

[Chugalug2]

MSOCS:-
The reality remains that the bottom line will be that of the balance book and not what we might actually need as a country. What we don't need as a country is VSOs incurring massive deficits in the military supply budget by forcing through a doomed reorganisation, and making them up by attacking the ring fenced Air Safety one.

It has never recovered from that, UK Military Airworthiness still lies in ruins because of the actions of a very few old men, albeit very senior ones. They are beyond all reach it seems, despite breaking Military Law by issuing illegal orders to subvert the Military Airworthiness Regulations yet sign them off as complied with.

No-one wants to know; the SoS for Defence, Defence Ministers, the Head of the Civil Service, the HoC Select Committee for Defence, the House of Lords, the Thames Valley Police, or the RAF Provost Marshal. Evidently they are all honourable men and remain so in their sinecure jobs in the Defence Industries.

How any of this should come as news to long time PPRuNe members I fail to understand. It has been well covered in the various UK Fatal Military Air Accident threads in this very forum.

[walter kennedy]

Hi Tec, good point to raise - especially poignant to me as Graydon was the first person I wrote to (in 1994) voicing my concerns as to what they may have been doing close to the Mull and what steps I though were needed to gather particular evidence (in advance of the formal inquiries) before it was lost.
It was particularly disingenuous of him to say that they were miles off course as subsequent detailed analysis made it abundantly clear that they had been making a deliberate approach to a particular point on the Mull; that same analysis derived that they were in control right up to impact (all in an 80+ page illustrated submission I put into the Lord Philip Review).
When you say that MOK (thread) would have to start all over again, I say the debate never really started on the important aspects - from an airmanship view, they had run into an isolated low hill and yet navigation was never openly and honestly covered.
I note a similarity with the Falklands Chinook crash - hitting a ridge - in that there seems a reluctance to acknowledge the difficulty of judging distance off certain featureless terrain; how about doing it when an instrument is misleading you? (yeah, yeah, I'm bringing up the CPLS bogeyman again.)

[MSOCS]

Why don't you rename this hijacked thread "MoK 2" guys?

[newt]

MSOCS you only have to look at what has happened in the years since the early sixties to realise what has been happening! Furthermore, take a look at the very brief career these guys have in the front line before promotion into the realms of fantasy! The system as it stands is unsustainable! There is no continuity between the front end and the VSOs. There needs to be some lateral thinking, especially as we have so few squadrons and frontline assets. Pilots should be professional pilots not future senior wheels! We need to rethink the structure before we get the results that reflect a modern Air Force. This has been the case for far too long!:ok:

[MSOCS]

Newt,

I completely disagree.

You may be referring to bygone days and practises but I'm not. Today's VSOs and those in the pipeline to replace them are indeed made up of the various branches (the majority are NOT pilots!) and almost all of those that spring to my mind have a great deal of experience of ops ("Front End"), having commanded at either/or both the tactical or operational levels. Few serving members of the Armed Forces, across all ranks, will have avoided the last 25 years we've been fighting baddies in the sandpit!

You say pilots should be professional pilots? The vast majority of pilots don't actually make it to VSO rank (1*+). Career routes such as the Professional Aviator spine allow pilots to remain in flying or flying-related posts for their entire careers. Indeed, a healthy, modern Air Force depends upon such people to pass hard-won experience onto others. For the very tiny minority who's personal choice and capabilities suit promotion to high rank then so be it, but it's their choice. If you are referring to VSO posts being filled "only by pilots" then you're out of date; take a look at ACAS (an Engineer) and the 2/3-star non-pilots across DE&S, DIO and in MoD. Those individuals are where they are by their own merits and demonstrate a far more level playing field than you've implied.

[kintyred]

Newt, MSOCS,

No doubt there are some VSOs with the requisite experience and intellect to perform their roles adequately, but the overriding problem is the organisation itself. Without individual accountability it is impossible to determine an individual's suitability to hold high office. The whole edifice is a masterpiece of obfuscation and needs a root and branch review to make it fit for purpose. It's all very well for VSOs to be speaking out against defence cuts but they are part of the problem. Until they can show the government that the MoD is efficient and gives value for money they will have no credibility.

[Courtney Mil]

Without individual accountability it is impossible to determine an individual's suitability to hold high office.

Impossible for whom to determine? Remember that these people do not live their lives in the public eye. News of most of their work never even goes beyond their office of meeting rooms, apart from to the people intended to act upon it or that need to be informed. These are not celebs playing to the press or actors playing to an audience.

They don't seek our determination of anything, especially their suitability.

Some may be better than others and some may make mistakes or do things wrong. But they certainly neither need nor seek anyone's approval.

Goodness, that coming from me?

[tucumseh]

Why don't you rename this hijacked thread "MoK 2" guys?

Unfortunately if a thread is started about an individual who is synonymous with an event, that event will be mentioned sooner or later. If I started one about Geoff Hurst, someone would drag up a hat-trick he scored in 1966.

By the way, I see the subject has started styling himself "Sir .." not "ACM Sir.." in letters to the press. (Times, yesterday). If he wants to bang on about 2% of GDP, fine. But first there should be an inquiry into gross and quite conscious waste and why very senior staffs practice and condone it. Then the subject and his mates could have their say, as a first hand witnesses.


Remember that these people do not live their lives in the public eye.

By writing to the press he chose to. By lying he drew greater attention.

[Mach Two]

Actually, I don't care that much about anyone's perceptions of those that speak out or what they may or may not have done. We need these issues highlighted to the public and the politicians and I thank all of them for doing so.

The most important thing to me is the maintenance of our capability and my conditions of service.

[ricardian]

Interesting article on budget cuts and their effect (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20150531.aspx)

[teeteringhead]

And of course, under the "Duty Holder" construct, there IS identified, named individual responsibility, which can extend for life!!

To quote from the scary-ish letter sent by AOCs to DDHs:As such [DDH] you are personally legally responsible and accountable [for all activities that may pose a Risk to Life] through me and the SDH [CAS] to the S of S. :eek::eek:

[ex-fast-jets]

You are wrong.

Not all are good.

Not all are bad.

I would have expected a more balanced view from you.

[Courtney Mil]

Actually, I don't care that much about anyone's perceptions of those that speak out or what they may or may not have done. We need these issues highlighted to the public and the politicians and I thank all of them for doing so.

The most important thing to me is the maintenance of our capability and my conditions of service.

A good dose of reality. Thank you. I suspect many other serving members may feel the same.

[newt]

Still policing my posts Bomber!

My view is balanced! The majority were poor and the good few and far between!:E

[Chugalug2]

BomberH:-
Not all are good. Not all are bad.But they all stick together! That is why the MAA cannot and will not probe the Haddon-Cave "Golden Period" when the real hatchet job on the system of UK Military Airworthiness provision was wrought. Because it will not go there, any attempt to get airworthiness working again is as a mansion built upon sand.

That is why the MAA must be independent of the MOD, so that it can do its job properly and make UK military aircraft safe again.

Mach Two:-
The most important thing to me is the maintenance of our capability and my conditions of service. That is all I would want for you too. That is why I crack on in my attempts to ensure that the aircraft that you fly do not explode in mid-air, that the escape systems that you rely on to save your life will do so because they have a full safety case, that should your IFF fail in an operational environment you are at least warned of it in order to take the appropriate action and not lose your life in a Blue on Blue.

That is why I call for an independent MAA and MAAIB; of the MOD and of each other.

[Whenurhappy]

There have been 'yes men' on the 5th Floor; certainly the last CAS was particularly weak and was prepared to hang out officers to dry when politically expedient to do so (having witnessed that at first hand 5 years ago). However, our current CAS is from a different breed. Vast operational and command experience 'in the thick of it'. He innately understands jointery (as do all the Chiefs) and understands - as they all do - that cuts cannot be made in isolation. For example (and no, I am not opening a new MPA thread), removing the Nimrods from the ORBAT appears to have a direct impact on NAVY MOs. Similarly a reduction in CA has a direct impact on (potential) Land and littoral operations.

I just hope that the 'lessons identified' in SDSR 2010 are re-read and applied this year. If there's no money, well, there's no money. Reduction of FWA (fraud, waste and abuse) could help; at present accrual accounting methods do not understand (it seems) programme investment - in equipment, infrastructure and personnel (the Defence Lines of Development, if you like). We can all cite cases where huge investment has been made in, say, infrastructure (the new hangar at St Athan, for example) only for it to abandoned because someone else has a good idea. We call all think of examples where personnel have been incredibly expensively trained and then to be woefully mis-employed and then ultimately lost to the Service.

We can all think of examples of 'for want of a nail...' and 'spend to save' concepts that could make huge budgetary gains, but the funding wasn't available because of arcane rules, or an administrative system that promotes banality and actively discourages calculated risk management.

Main Building decision-making has improved but it is, I understand, still sclerotic. I contrast it with the organisation I work for now. I get asked for 'lines to take' (no, not cocaine) for Ministerial and HOGs-level meetings; there's no circular AH/1* Working Group/2* Steering Group/DB staffing. My principal goes 'WP - what should we get the Minister to bring up when he speaks with his opposite number tonight?' I give my points, based on experience and on what I garner from conversations and briefings from Whitehall and that's it. My boss doesn't then say 'lets spend the next two weeks circulating this to people who have a peripheral interest in the subject'. Desk officers have, in the past, wondered why I wouldn't return to the mainstream RAF...

[tucumseh]

And of course, under the "Duty Holder" construct, there IS identified, named individual responsibility, which can extend for life!!

To quote from the scary-ish letter sent by AOCs to DDHs: Quote:
As such [DDH] you are personally legally responsible and accountable [for all activities that may pose a Risk to Life] through me and the SDH [CAS] to the S of S. Different acronyms, but just the same as letters of delegation have always said. Mine changed significantly upon repeal of the Crown Protection Act Sect 10.

The key question is; what happens in practice if you report a problem? We know for certain what occurred when the thread subject was in power. You were threatened with dismissal! MoD have never denied this as it was the subject of an internal audit report in June 1996. They have, however, confirmed no action was taken. Implement recommendation #13 and prrune would have been a boring place this last 15 years. But many aircrew would still be alive. Who was CAS and who was Chief Engineer? Who lied over MoK? No prizes......

21 years today.



Sorry, wanted to add I agree with the "extend for life" bit, but MoD says it doesn't. An MP on the Military Covenant Committee asked this a couple of years ago. That is why BoI/SI presidents do not have to report if they receive new evidence or evidence that was withheld from them that would have changed their report. Tornado ZG710 (Patriot 2003) was used as the example if I recall. Sir Brian Burridge declined to act despite evidence he'd been lied to.