Roland Pulfrew

Hi All

Been away for a bit (unfortunately at my own expense this time). Just wanted to add -Strims your first post - spot on. Now does anybody still have the e-post address for that Observer journo?

John Nichol

Can I humbly refer you folk on "State of Nation" to my post on page 4 of Eurofighter thread?

kbf1

Do we not come here to hear things straight from the horses mouth and discuss the issues? If this is true then the "Cranditz Wannabes" as some of you have so crudely described them are quite right to come here and ask those of us with inside knowledge of the armed forces how to proceed? Clogging up the forum with such low brow questions for us high-brow intellectuals? No I don't think so. It wasn't a "Cranditz Wannabe" who started "The Bar" thread, amusing though it is, it can hardly be described as topical. Didn't see any of you complain about that being at the top of the therad list!

------------------
Remember: all landings are controlled crashes!

Nil nos tremefacit

'Cranditz wannabes' should be here, but, if we are concerned about the 'State of the Nation', we must be concerned about their lack of spelling and grammar skills.

Attention to detail and accuracy are key qualities required in aircrew. Youthful enthusiasm alone will not replace the high calibre officers, WOs and SNCOs who are leaving. If our armed forces are to be a potent threat to people with hostile intent, they must contain the highest calibre individuals. There must be a wealth of experience to pass on to the new and enthusiastic youngsters who are joining. My fear is that we are losing those very people that the young 'wannabes' look up to.

The leadership issue is real. A well led, well motivated, well paid and well equipped service will attract the highest calibre young men and women in droves. Officers, WOs and SNCOs will want to be part of that service. For any young man or woman there surely is no real attraction in being an airborne bus driver when the alternative is military flying, but perception is everything when morale is low.

Yet again we have a massive shortfall in potential recruits and, apparently, the largest number of 'mid-life crises' in the country. Many others on this thread have waxed lyrical about the reasons for this. It would be nice to think that the 'leaders' will sit down and analyse the detailed and constructive comments from those who serve and have served in the finest armed forces in the world.

Reluctant Staff Officer

This topic has made me ; not because of the content, which is of exceptional quality, but because it shows that a large number of OUR people give a sh*t what happens to OUR Services and that their often constructive views are either being ignored, or that the military's utter lack of ability to communicate EFFECTIVELY to its personnel has hidden a reasonable response/action.

As my username shows my job, you can understand that I am unwilling to staff this through the normal system. However, I believe that our Airships must have our peoples' perceptions presented to them, no matter the pain. So, would anyone mind if I print off this entire topic and snail it direct (ie not via outer office sh*t filters)to the CAS, CINCSTC and AMP? If you don't want it done, fine, but it would be a wasted opportunity.

In order to prevent this Q becoming a separate thread, feel free to e-mail replies.

YakYak

I will endeavour to ensure my spelling and punctuation is of the highest standard so as not to get slated later.

There's obviously a worry about recruitment, and being of an age where I am surrounded by potential 'Cranditz Wannabes' I am able to tell you why. PR is the biggest problem, young people see nothing of our armed forces except for the odd broadcast about commitments abroad. Not being able to wear uniforms or acknowledge your job in public, means that youngsters have an impression of the RAF/ Army / RN as being full of moustache touting toffs that enjoy shouting a lot and hiding from the world. Eighty percent of people I talk to do not even know the difference between Officers and Ranks! The only sight they get is of the occasional group of squaddies trashing a local establishment, but they cannot think to consider that such squaddies are stressed and overstretched, as are their commanders.

Sorry to ramble - but the key is PR to sort out this shortage. Telling any A-level student the starting salary for a DE would get them hooked INSTANTLY, but such information is not available to them. I remember a touring RN recruitment drive at my school four years ago nabbed at least twelve of my buddies into joining up! But such things don't happen any more, the public isn't interested in the armed forces because they never get to see them hidden behind the razor wire and barriers. People need to be told the potential for the AF as a valid career opportunity, there ar eplenty of high claibre youngsters but sadly businesses nab them first. Aim for DE, everyone wants to go to Uni these days so presenting them with a valid alternative is a good shot, bearing in mind nobody likes debt!

Get me? Just thought it might be handy advice for any airships / peoples in the careers branch swooping down. You can get back to talking about the stuff way over my head now.

YY

Wholigan

Reluctant,

I refer you to my earlier post "There is a severe rumour going round that somebody with large spheroids has copied and printed all of the words on this thread and placed the subsequent lump of paperwork in the "in-tray" of a certain one-star in PMA. If true - stand by for fireworks!!! Or NOT!!!"

Why not do it!?!?!?!

John Nichol

Reluctant,

Do it! I have to say though, I'm pretty sure that the men at the top have been reading pprune for a good few weeks now since the Observer piece.

Still, it's worth a try. You might just get a result.

Good luck.

JimNich

The truth is out there.

Maybe the answer to some of the dilemmas facing our Services is right there in Strimmer's original post. He/she quite rightly surmised that the armed forces of today will, in a limited way, reflect the society that produces it. So let's think about that.
We live in a "throw-away", short attention span era. A time of instant gratification where the most newsworthy item appears to be Beckam's new tattoo or hair cut. We wallow in an orgy of orgasmic consumerism, "use once" cameras, "no bank" banks, unshackled "Still Only 10p" journalism, the Millenium Dome, 238 channels on TV and every kid over 10 with their own mobile phone. If anyone in society today stops long enough to even spare a thought for their Armed Forces then its only to see the snapshot footage of some military aircraft wreckage. As Chris Tarrant used to be quite fond of saying "THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT!". I'm sorry Jacko but I just don't buy the theory that there are so many enlightened Journos out there ready to carry the banner for our armed services, news ain't what it used to be (anyone remember ANY mention of Defence in the last election).
So, with this in mind its easy to see that no-one anywhere is even going to raise an eyebrow at the military's very real problems, especially when so many of them are mirrored in industry.
I'm not, however, as cynical as Mrs BinAroundabit. The deteriation of the services that she ascribes to Mr Blair was set in motion long before he came to power by the biggest bunch of Euro cynics on the face of the planet. I believe the truth is that we are lead by a bunch of peace loving idealists who find the need for an armed force a bit of an embarassment and are too confused by the world at large to have any grand plan for it. They are, after all, just a bunch of flawed human beings exactly like you and me.
I do agree quite strongly with Yak Yak's comment though, well observed. We're very much "out of sight, out of mind" and cheesy cinemagraphic adverts won't help our cause one iota.
Finally, one obsevation about our society today. You will find that the Services will very shortly be without a credible SNCO cadre (HURRAH! I hear you cry, get rid of the moaning proletariat g1ts. However, in a service driven by technology, experience is everything and you won't get that with the Officer corps swapping jobs every 2/3 years). As I se it, most kids these days, if they decide not to go to Uni and join the Forces as a ranker, has no intention of staying in after their initial engagement. This generation accepts that a person will have two or three different careers in their working lifespan. The ones that do opt for further education will not be content with the opportunities available to the non-commissioned so more and more it is becoming an Officers Airforce (what percentage of this comment you put down to sour grapes is your choice, its still true). Whilst ground trades are being disbanded/civilianised there are growing commissioned branches, all part of the upside-down pyramid, the "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" situation that we find ourselves in today.

Paul Wesson

JimNich

"Anyone remember ANY mention of defence in the last election"

Don't expect it in the next.

Labour/Lib Dem et al are highly unlikely to have a single ex-service candidate between them (any PPruners Blair Babes?). Gone are the days when Parliament was full of retired wartime or ex-national service military personnel. Even the Tory Party selection procedure is geared against anyone of a military background. Sixteen years commissioned service excludes active membership. The new candidates at the next election cannot have served full career as either officer or man because the age group being selected needs to have a good 10 years party service and ideally be under 45 (Lord Freeman, candidate selector in chief told me the age group when he interviewed me).

So far I have copies of the policy on housing, local government and the environment, but nothing on defence.

The truth is that the politicians of all parties don't see any votes in the sort of issues being discussed on PPrune. Hospitals and schools are big issues. Europe is phenomenal, but defence is a side show. Yet look at the industry jobs related to all of the big projects currently underway. At the end of the day the future of crafty old reynard will be more important at the ballot box than the whole lot of the military aircrew!

If ever anyone goes canvassing they will find that dog sh*t appears to be more important than the future of Brize Norton here in Carterton! Sadly chaps and chappesses, Joe Public isn't as interested in the defence of the realm as we would all like.

Jensen

In today's Sunday Times, written by: [email protected]

Defence company accused of cheating defence ministry of millions

Britain's biggest defence manufacturer, BAe Systems, is under investigation by the Ministry of Defence police after a whistleblower claimed that managers cheated the taxpayer of millions of pounds.
In detailed allegations to police and The Sunday Times, Bob McCartney, a former engineer with the company, said that some managers at its Marconi subsidiary charged the MoD hundreds of thousands of pounds for trivial "non-jobs" taking just hours to complete.

McCartney said that he had personally worked on one such contract - to make minor software modifications on the RAF's Tornado jet. "This job required two days of work for one man - myself," he said. "It was very simple and in-volved basically reading a manual and changing one line of software code. For this job, the company charged the Ministry of Defence several hundred thousand pounds."

The practice of overcharging - with clear echoes of the famous $600 (£400) coffee pots ordered by the American military - was widespread throughout the company, it is claimed. McCartney blamed a combination of "sloppily written" contracts by the MoD and opportunism by Marconi for the overcharging.

"The MoD did not know what they wanted. Marconi put the job specification to them and they approved it without realising," he said.

The proceeds from overcharging were, McCartney claimed, used to cover up overspends on other projects. Contracts which were supposed to be "fixed price" often went over budget. In theory, these overspends should have been paid for out of Marconi's profits. Instead, McCartney said, managers would "raid" other MoD projects for the cash.

"Nobody was stashing money in Swiss bank accounts," he said. "The fraud was used to protect their profits and make up for often mind-boggling incompetence."

McCartney also claimed that Marconi misappropriated MoD money to finance development of its own, separate products - not destined for the MoD, but for sale on the open market. Such development should have been paid for out of company funds, but was instead unwittingly financed by the taxpayer, he said.

McCartney claimed he had attended a meeting in 1998 where a named Marconi manager explicitly instructed staff to lie to the MoD about what their contract money was really paying for.

McCartney worked for Marconi, mainly at its site in Stanmore, west London, between 1995 and this year. Most of his claims relate to the time before Marconi was taken over by BAe Systems, formally known as British Aerospace, last year. McCartney left the firm for the civilian sector two months ago. In a reference, BAe Systems, described him as "competent and trustworthy".

A spokesman for BAe Systems said McCartney's allegations were regarded as "serious" and that an internal investigation had been launched. "We are working to get to the bottom of this matter," he said. No staff have yet been suspended or disciplined.

McCartney was interviewed for nine hours by officers from the MoD police fraud squad. A police spokesman confirmed that a fraud investigation had been launched.

Ministers, faced with a growing cash crisis in defence, are desperate to reduce the vast cost of procurement - which consumes almost 45% of the MoD's budget - £9 billion out of £22 billion. Treasury officials have made clear that perceived inefficiencies in defence procurement undermine the MoD's case for more funding to relieve severe problems in the frontline services.

There is, however, likely to be bad news on defence procurement for the government this week. The National Audit Office's big projects report, to be published on Thursday, will catalogue enormous delays and cost overruns in 25 of the largest defence projects.

It is expected to say that "smart procurement", the government's initiative to claw back costs, has yet to produce convincing results for the taxpayer.

--------

Why am I not surprised by any of this?

YakYak

Before we go destroying Hoon, did anyone see a (not suprisingly short and insignificant) article in the Sunday Mail? Herr Brown intends to make another £300k worth of cuts to the defence budget, so Hoon demonstrated what would happen if the cuts came out of Scotland (Brown's constituency). Result? No Leuchers, and no new ships for the Navy (all hypothetical).

Brown seems to be backing down again. Not for long I suspect.

Not wanting to sound pessimistic, but did anybody hear the story of the Russians in WWII going into battle without any boots because there were too many generals squandering all the funds? Not to insult the airships on holiday in Egypt, or be accused of scaremongering, but.......

YY

[This message has been edited by YakYak (edited 02 July 2000).]

JimNich

To be fair to Pa Broon though, he's just doing his job. His party have expensive policies which need funding. All he's saying is "look, there's a limited pot of money, you want it for schools, hospitals and refugee sanctuary. Okay but if you want all that you can't have 'this' because that's the only spare cash we have.".
Unfortunately for us the 'this' is a credible armed forces.

Agaricus bisporus

I fear this regime of death by a thousand cuts will continue until it all goes wrong one day and we get thoroughly trashed by some tinpot regime who spent out on a few F16s and a couple of silent electric subs.

We have got too complacent over the last century or more by not losing any wars, our luck cant last, and as long as we continue to get involved in conflicts we had better be ready for the nasty shock which must, inevitably, come. Are our politicians ready for this, and are we, for that matter? It will shake this great nation to its core when it happens, and who knows what will result from the aftershocks.

Somethin better change!

BEagle

Isn't it actually £300M rather than £300K that El Gordo is trying to cut?? The NAO report should make interesting reading for those who believe in 'smart procurement'.

YakYak

BEagle lets look at it this way: however much it is, it's too much.

HappyChappie

YY,

It's LEUCHARS dear girl. It's at the top of the map on the right, right on the edge of the brown bit and the blue bit. But don't worry, we probably won't be able to afford to give Navs maps by the time you get there.

But we'll still have the "Arrows!!!"

HC

[This message has been edited by HappyChappie (edited 02 July 2000).]

Strimmer Trimmer

Reluctant Staff Officer

Please do pass on this thread - even if it has already been done, you may be in a better position to bypass the ****-filters, which has to be a good thing. It may even provoke a response from the quiet airships once they get back from their cruise on denile.

Any chance of letting us know just how high up a reluctant staff officer you are (obviously without compromising yourself)?

smooth approach

Yy, not to be too pessimistic but: did anyone hear of the RAF going to Kosovo last year without the proper equipment, infrastructure or weapons?

Deja Vous

smooth approach

YY, wake up

"Not wanting to sound pessimistic, but did anybody hear the story about the RAF going to Kosovo last year without the right ...... ?"

Not wanting to sound pessimistic, but did anybody hear the story about the RAF going to Sierra Leone last month without the right ......?"